A  REPORT  ON 

CHARITABLE  and  CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTIONS 


BY 

JAMES  W.  GARNER 

PROFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

PREPARED  FOR  THE 

EFFICIENCY  AND  ECONOMY  COMMITTEE 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 


1914 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books.  TT  ,  T  T ., 

U.  of  I.  Library 


2 2 


MW 


DUG 

.  W   V. 


C  1 2  1966 


17625-S 


A  REPORT  ON 

CHARITABLE  and  CORRECTIONAL 
INSTITUTIONS 


W:  G 


JAMES  W:  GARNER 

l»\ 

PROFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE  . 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

PREPARED  FOR  THE 

EFFICIENCY  AND  ECONOMY  COMMITTEE 

CREATED  UNDER  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE 
FORTY-EIGHTH  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY 

STATE  OF  ILLINOIS 


SENATORS 

WALTER  I.  MANNY,  CHAIRMAN       -         MT.  STERLING 
W.  DUFF  PIERCY     -        -        -        -      MOUNT  VERNON 

LOGAN  HAY SPRINGFIELD 

CHARLES  F.  HURBURGH      -       -       -      GALESBURG 


REPRESENTATIVES 

CHARLES  F.  CLYNE,  SECRETARY     -  -  AURORA 

SPEAKER  WILLIAM  McKINLEY  -  -  CHICAGO 

JOHN  M.  RAPP         -       -       -       -  -  FAIRFIELD 

EDWARD  J.  SMEJKAL     -        -        -  -  CHICAGO 


JOHN  A.  FAIRLIE,  DIRECTOR    -  URBANA  - 


THE  WINDERMERE  PRESS,  CHICAGO 


CONTENTS. 

I.  CHARITABLE  AND  PENAL  ADMINISTRATION  IN  ILLINOIS.  Page 

A.  General  Observations   5 

B.  Charitable    Institutions    6 

1.  Organization  and  Administration  before  1910 7 

The  State  Board  of  Public  Charities 8 

2.  Present  Organization 11 

Thef  Board  of  Administration 11 

Fiscal    Supervisor    13 

The  Charities  Commission 14 

Boards   of  Visitors 15 

Appropriations    16 

C.  Penal  and  Reformatory  Institutions 17 

1.  Separate   Boards    17 

2.  The  Board  of  Prison  Industries 19 

3.  Board  of  Classification 19 

4.  The  Penitentiary  Commission 19 

5.  The  State  Board  of  Pardons 20 

D.  Comparison  of  the  Charitable  and  Penal  Systems 22 

Advantages  of  the  Central  Board  System 23 

Criticism  of  the  Central  Board  System 31 

II.  CHARITABLE  AND  PENAL  ADMINISTRATION  IN  OTHER  STATES  AND  COUNTRIES. 

COUNTRIES. 

A.  In  Other  States'. 32 

1.  Central   Boards   of   Control 32 

2.  State  Boards  of  Charity ". 41 

3.  Boards  of  Pardon  and  Parole 42 

4.  Opinions  on  the  Central  Board  System 43 

Success  in  Other  States 43 

Expert  Opinion  in  Favor  of  Centralized   Control  of  Penal 

Institutions    46 

Criticism  of  Centralized   Administration 48 

B.  In  Foreign  Countries 51 

1.  In  England — 

For  Relief   .51 

Care  of  the  Insane 51 

Penal  Institutions   52 

2.  In  France — 

Charity  Administration   53 

Prison   Administration    54 

3.  In  Germany — 

Charitable    Institutions 55 

Penal  Institutions    55 

III.  SUGGESTIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS.     „ 

A.  Charitable   Institutions    56 

B.  Penal  and  Reformatory  Institutions .  • 57 

Comparative   Expense    61 


96204  I 


A  REPORT  ON 
CHARITABLE  and  CORRECTIONAL  INSTITUTIONS 


By  PROFESSOR  JAMES  W.  GARNER,  University  of  Illinois. 


I.     CHARITABLE    AND     PENAL    ADMINISTRATION 
IN     ILLINOIS. 

A.       GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS. 

For  the  care  and  maintenance  of  the  defective,  delinquent  and  other 
dependent  classes  and  for  the  confinement  of  convicted  criminals,  the 
State  of  Illinois  maintains  twenty-five  institutions,  counting  three  that 
have  been  authorized  but  which  have  not  yet  been  established,  namely, 
the  Alton  State  Hospital,  the  Epileptic  Colony,  and  the  Surgical  Insti- 
tute for  Crippled  Children. 

Administratively  speaking,  they  fall  into  two  classes :  First,  the 
twenty-two  charitable  institutions  which  are  under  the  control  and 
management  of  a  central  body  known  as  the  Board  of  Administration 
and  which  are  subject  to  the  visitation  and  inspection  of  the  State 
Charities  Commission ;  second,  the  two  State  penitentiaries  at  Joliet  and 
Menard  and  the  State  reformatory  at  Pontiac,  each  of  which  is  under 
the  control  and  management  of  a  separate  board.  There  is  also  another 
board  which  has  charge  of  the  construction  of  a  new  penitentiary,  a 
board  of  prison  industries,  a  board  of  classification,  and  a  board  of 
pardons.  None  of  the  seven  last  named  boards  are  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Board  of  Administration  or  the  Charities  Commission* 

The  following  table  contains  a  list  of  the  charitable,  penal  and 
reformatory  institutions  of  the  State,  with  the  date  of  their  establish- 
ment, the  place  of  location,  the  value  of  their  property  (1910-1912), 
the  number  of  their  employees,  and  the  per  capita  cost  of  maintenance. 


EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 


STATISTICS  RELATING  TO 
ILLINOIS  STATE  CHARITABLE  AND  CORRECTIONAL  INSTITUTIONS 


CHARITABLE 

INSTITUTIONS 

Date 
Established. 

Location. 

Number  of 
Buildings. 

"3 

$-d 

W  eS 
««JJ 

Value  of 
Property. 

o 

-4s 

Us 

No.  of 
Inmates, 
1911-12. 

a 
-•3 

'3/3  <BN 

flli 

«  o  §o> 
fcU.S-i 

Hospital,  Elgin  State 
Kankakee  .. 
Jacksonville 
Anna      .  .  .. 

1869 
1877 
1847 
1869 
1895 
1895 
1889 
1912 

1865 
1839 
1849 

1887 
1885 
1895 
1865 
1871 
1893 
1901 

Elgin 

29 
61 
32 
22 
47 
43 
11 
42 

34 
22 
17 

2 
56 
3 
20 
1 
22 
47 

510 
840 
343 
449 
593 
576 
17 
234 

529 
158 
40 

7a 
222 
15 
96 
4a 
240 
921 

$  1,247,603 
1,914,833 
1,237,527 
1,300,465 
1,020,010 
1,283,942 
125,388 
1,519,128 

1.009.937 
432,243 
361.244 

110,171 

871,328 
67,075 
281,916 
290.747 
499,991 
753,921 

277 
450 
246 
222 
180 
294 
29 
306 

185 
124 
67 

14 
73 
22 
52 
50 
84 
70 

1,475 
2,653 
1,599 
1,572 
1.401 
2,034 
220 
674 

1,357 
398 
190 

100 
1.417 

71 
271 
169 

448 
522 

$140.00 
138.71 
130.12 
142.03 
121.73 
139.59 
188.90 
170.32 

149.08 
297.41 
308.25 

295.46 
151.98 
360.25 
248.08 
279.63 
208.91 
237.03 

Kankakee  .. 
Jacksonville 
Anna 

Watertown.. 
Peoria  

Watertown. 
Peoria..  . 

Chester  
Chicago  
Lincoln  State  School 
and  Colony 

Menard  
Dunning  

Lincoln  
Jacksonville 
Jacksonville 

Chicago  
Quincy. 

School  for  Deaf  

School  for  Blind 

Industrial  Home  for 
the  Blind  

Soldiers'  and  Sailors' 
Home  

Soldier's  Widows' 
Home.... 

Wilmington 
Normal  
Chicago  
Geneva..  

St.  Charles.. 
Kankakee 

Soldier's  Orphans' 
Home.... 

Charitable  Eye  and 
Ear  Infirmary  
Training   School  for 
Girls  

St.    Charles    School 
for  Boys  

Alton  St.  Hospital.... 
Epileptic  Colony 

1911 
1913 

Alton 

Surgical  Institute  
Totals,  Charitable 
Institutions  

1911 

511 

5,783 

$14,327,472 

2,751 

16,578 

$156.87 

CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTIONS 

Illinois  State  Pen'ry 
South.  111.  Pen'ry  
Illinois  State  Reformatory 
Totals,    Correctional 
Institutions  

1857 
1877 
1867 

Joliet 

$    1,887,279 
1.602,401 
1,022,661 

116 
109 
107 

19 

1,376 
1,185 
681 

0-12 

$  175.20 
197.10 
255.50 

Menard 

Pontiac  

$  4,512,341 

332 

3,242 

$208.05 

Grand  Total 

$18,839.813 

3,083 

19,820 

a — City  Lots. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  classes  of  dependents  for  the  care 
and  maintenance  of  whom  these  institutions  have  been  established,  the 
charitable  institutions  may  be  grouped  into  four  divisions:  (a)  those 
for  mental  defectives,  including  the  criminal  insane  and  feeble  minded 
children;  (b)  those  for  physical  defectives,  such  as  the  blind,  the  deaf, 
the  dumb,  crippled  children,  and  those  afflicted  with  diseases  of  the  eye 
or  ear;  (c)  those  for  honorably  discharged  soldiers  and  sailors  and 
their  dependent  orphans  and  widows ;  and  (d)  those  for  delinquent 
boys  and  girls.  The  law  denominates  as  "charitable"  all  the  institu- 
tions created  for  the  care  of  these  several  classes  of  persons,  although 
strictly  speaking  some  of  them,  like  the  training  schools  for  delinquent 
children  and  the  asylum  for  insane  criminals,  are  not  in  reality  charit- 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  7 

able  institutions,  and  they  were  not  so  designated  by  law  prior  to  1909. 
The  Act  of  June  15,  1909,  however,  includes  them  in  the  category  of 
"charitable"  institutions  and  subjects  them  to  the  inspection  and  inves- 
tigation of  the  State  Charities  Commission,  along  with  the  other  more 
strictly  charitable  institutions. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  accompanying  statistical  tables  that  the 
total  number  of  inmates  in  all  these  institutions  is  about  20,000,  that 
they  embrace  an  aggregate  of  more  than  500  buildings,  and  that  the 
total  valuation  of  their  property  is  about  $19,000,000.  The  total  legis- 
lative appropriations  for  1913-15  amount  to  $12,775,993. 

B.       CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.     Organization  and  Administration  Before  1910. 

The  first  State  charitable  institution  to  be  established  in  Illinois 
was  the  asylum  for  the  education  of  the  deaf  and  dumb,  which  was 
located  at  Jacksonville  in  1839.  It  was  placed  under  the  control  of 
a  board  of  directors  appointed  by  the  Governor,  the  immediate  man- 
agement being  vested  in  the  hands  of  a  superintendent  chosen  by  the 
board.  In  1847  a  hospital  for  the  insane  was  established,  and  it,  too, 
was  located  at  Jacksonville.  It  was  placed  under  the  control  of  a  board 
of  trustees  appointed  by  the  Governor  for  a  term  of  three  years.  The 
board  was  empowered  to  choose  a  superintendent  for  a  term  of  two 
years  and  to  remove  him  for  unfaithfulness  or  incompetency.  The  in- 
mates of  the  asylum  were  required  to  pay  the  cost  of  their  maintenance 
wherever  possible ;  in  case  they  were  unable,  the  expense  was  borne  by 
the  counties  from  which  they  came.  In  1851  the  expense  of  main- 
taining insane  paupers  was  transferred  from  the  counties  to  the  State, 
thus  making  the  asylum  more  definitely  a  State  institution.  The  num- 
ber of  persons  received  from  each  county  was  based  upon  the  popu- 
lation of  the  county.  The  third  of  the  State  charitable  institutions  to 
be  established  was  the  institution  for  the  blind,  also  located  at  Jackson- 
ville (1849).  It  was  placed  under  the  control  of  a  board  of  five  trustees 
appointed  by  the  Governor  for  a  term  of  four  years.  In  1851  the  term 
was  reduced  to  two  years. 

By  an  act  of  1853  the  government  of  the  three  institutions  was 
somewhat  modified  with  a  view  to  uniformity.  The  number  of  mem- 
bers of  the  boards  of  trustees  of  the  asylum  for  the  insane  and  the 
institution  for  the  deaf  and  dumb  was  fixed  at  six  and  their  terms  of 
service  at  four  years.  The  size  and  term  of  the  board  of  trustees  of 
the  institution  for  the  education  of  the  blind  was  unaffected  by  the  act. 

None  of  the  trustees  had  received  any  compensation  for  their  serv- 
ices or  an  allowance  for  their  expenses.  The  Act  of  1853,  however, 
provided  that  henceforth  their  travelling  and  personal  expenses  in- 
curred in  the  performance  of  their  official  duties  should  be  paid  out 
of  the  funds  of  the  institution.  Accounts  of  each  institution  were 
required  to  be  kept  and  reported  so  as  to  show  the  kind,  quality  and 
cost  of  every  article  purchased  for  the  institution  and  the  name  of  the 
person  of  whom  bought.  The  law  contained  other  provisions  which 
indicated  a  centralizing  tendency  and  a  desire  to  secure  greater  uni- 
formity in  the  organization  and  management  of  the  institutions. 


8  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

In  1865  provision  was  made  for  two  other  institutions.  These 
were  the  Soldiers'  Orphans'  Home,  located  at  Normal,  and  the  school 
for  the  instruction  and  training  of  idiots  and  feeble  minded  children, 
located  at  Lincoln,  and  now  known  as  the  Lincoln  State  School  and 
Colony.  The  former  was  placed  under  the  control  of  a  board  of  nine 
trustees  appointed  by  the  Governor  for  a  term  of  two  years ;  the  latter 
was  placed  under  the  control  of  the  directors  of  the  asylum  for  the 
deaf  and  dumb,  so  far  as  the  expenditures  of  its  funds  were  concerned. 
In  1869  two  additional  hospitals  for  the  insane  were  created,  one  being 
located  at  Elgin,  the  other  at  Anna.  Like  the  other  charitable  insti- 
tutions each  was  put  under  the  control  of  a  board  of  trustees. 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  present  constitution,  therefore, 
seven  State  charitable  institutions  had  been  established,  each  under  the 
control  of  a  separate  board  of  trustees  of  varying  size  and  terms  of 
office.  There  was  no  correlation  among  the  different  institutions  and 
but  little  uniformity  of  policy.  Each  purchased  its  own  supplies  and 
managed  its  own  affairs  without  respect  to  the  others.  The  boards  of 
trustees  were  required  to  make  reports  to  the  Legislature  and  the  in- 
stitutions were  biennially  visited  by  committees  of  the  Legislature,  but 
further  than  this  there  was  no  machinery  of  inspection,  no  unifying 
agency,  no  legally  recognized  body  of  experts  with  the  power  to  inves- 
tigate the  conditions  of  the  institutions  and  recommend  legislative  or 
administrative  measures  for  their  improvement. 

The  State  Board  of  Public  Chanties. 

Some  degree  of  central  supervision  over  these  institutions  was 
provided  by  the  creation,  in  1869,  of  the  Board  of  State  Commissioners 
of  Public  Charities,  popularly  known  as  the  State  Board  of  Charities. 

The  board  was  composed  of  five  members  appointed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor, with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  for  a  term  of  five  years.  The 
members  received  no  compensation  other  than  an  allowance  for  their 
expenses  and  for  any  necessary  outlay  incurred  in  making  investiga- 
tions. They  were  authorized  to  employ  a  salaried  secretary.  It  was 
made  their  duty,  or  that  of  some  one  of  their  number,  to  visit  all  the 
charitable  and  correctional  institutions,  except  prisons  receiving  State 
aid,1  twice  a  year  and  to  ascertain  whether  the  funds  appropriated  for 
their  aid  had  been  economically  and  judiciously  expended,  whether  the 
laws  had  been  complied  with  and  whether  the  institution  had  "accom- 
plished its  purpose."  They  were  required  to  report  the  results  of 
their  investigations  to  the  Governor  annually  and  to  make  any  special 
investigations  which  he  might  direct  them  to  make.  They  were  also 
required  to  visit  at  least  once  a  year  and  examine  into  the  condition 
.of  each  county  and  city  alms  house  and  other  places  where  the  insane 
were  confined  and  to  report  thereon  in  writing  to  the  Legislature.  They 
were  empowered  to  appoint  a  board  of  auxiliary  visitors  in  each 
county,  consisting  of  three  persons,  to  visit  all  county  alms  houses,  jails 
and  other  places  (other  than  State  institutions  or  licensed  private  insti- 
tutions for  the  care  of  the  insane),  in  which  any  person  of  unsound 
mind  was  confined. 

1.  There  were  then  two  correctional  institutions:  the  Penitentiary  at  Joliet, 
created  In  1857,  and  the  Reformatory  at  Pontiac,  created  in  1867.  Th«  Southern 
IlllnoU  Penitentiary  at  Menard  was  not  established  until  1877. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  9 

The  trustees  and  directors  of  each  institution  were  required  to 
make  a  full  and  detailed  biennial  report  to  the  board  concerning  their 
financial  and  other  transactions,  which  report,  if  found  correct  by  the 
board  of  charities,  was  to  be  delivered  by  them  to  the  Governor. 

The  creation  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities  was  an  important  step 
in  a  slow  movement  toward  a  more  centralized  system  of  administra- 
tion for  the  charitable  institutions,  a  movement  which  finally  resulted 
in  the  creation  of  the  Board  of  Administration  in  1909. 

The  Act  of  1869  also  made  certain  changes  in  the  administrative 
organization  of  the  charitable  institutions.  The  number  of  trustees  on 
the  governing  boards  of  most  of  the  institutions  was  reduced  to  three, 
a  measure  designed  to  secure  a  more  effective  responsibility  and 
efficiency  of  management;  and  the  Governor  was  given  power  to 
remove  any  trustee  or  director  whenever  in  his  judgment  the  best 
interests  of  the  institution  required,  the  only  limitation  being  that  he 
was  required  to  communicate  to  the  General  Assembly  the  reasons 
for  his  action. 

The  first  State  Board  of  Charities  was  organized  in  April,  1869. 
It  divided  the  State'  into  five  districts  and  assigned  one  member  of  the 
board  to  each  district.  During  the  first  year  of  its  existence  43  alms 
houses  and  60  jails  were  inspected.  One  of  its  first  acts  was  to  take 
a  census  of  idiots  and  insane  persons,  and,  upon  its  recommendation, 
the  Legislature,  in  1872,  gave  it  full  authority  to  collect  and  tabulate 
statistical  and  other  information  regarding  the  number  of  persons  in 
the  State  who  were  receiving  charitable  relief  and  the  methods  by 
which  this  relief  was  distributed. 

Upon  the  urgent  recommendation  of  the  State  Board  of  Charities 
the  Legislature  in  1875  enacted  an  important  law  "to  regulate  the  State 
charitable  institutions  (then  eight  in  number)  and  the  State  reform 
school  (at  Pontiac)  and  to  improve  their  organization  and  increase 
their  efficiency."  The  act  provided  that  each  institution  should  be 
under  the  control  of  a  board*  of  three  trustees  appointed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor for  a  term  of  six  years,  no  county  to  be  represented  by  more 
than  one  trustee  on  any  board;  the  Governor  was  given  the  power  to 
remove  any  trustee  for  good  cause ;  the  superintendents  of  the  insane 
asylums  and  the  institution  for  the  feeble  minded  were  required  to  be 
"educated  and  competent  physicians;"  the  principal  executive  officer 
of  each  institution  was  to  be  a  superintendent  appointed  by  the  board 
of  trustees  and  he  was  to  be  the  financial  agent  of  the  trustees ;  each 
institution  was  to  have  a  treasurer  whose  books  and  papers  were  to  be 
open  to  the  inspection  of  the  trustees  at  all  times;  the  trustees  were  to 
receive  no  compensation  other  than  their  actual  expenses  and  they  were 
required  to  hold  meetings  at  the  institution  at  least  once  every  three 
months;  they  were  required  to  purchase  supplies  wherever  they  could 
obtain  the  best  quality  at  the  lowest  price,  and  in  so  far  as  practicable 
in  large  rather  than  in  small  quantities ;  each  institution  was  required  to 
keep  a  record  of  the  number  of  officers,  employees,  and  inmates  pres- 
ent each  day;  also  records  of  the  amount  of  stores  and  supplies  re- 
ceived and  issued ;  and  finally  the  board  of  trustees  of  each  institution 


10  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

was  required  to  make  biennial  reports  to  the  State  Board  of  Charities 
concerning  the  administration  of  the  institution  during  the  two  preced- 
ing years. 

From  time  to  time  new  institutions  were  established,  as  shown 
below : 

1871 — Charitable  Eye  and  Ear  Infirmary,  Chicago.2 
1877 — Eastern  Hospital  for  the  Insane,  Kankakee. 
1885 — Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Home,  Quincy. 
1887 — Industrial  Home  for  the  Blind,  Chicago. 
1889 — Asylum  for  Insane  Criminals,  Chester. 
1893 — Home  for  Juvenile  Female  Offenders,  Geneva.3 
1895 — Western  Hospital  for  the  Insane,  Watertown. 

General  Hospital  for  the  Insane,  South  Bartonville. 

Soldiers'  Widows'  Home,  Wilmington. 
1901— St.  Charles  School  for  Boys,  St.  Charles. 

The  Act  of  1875  was  the  organic  law  for  the  government  of  all 
the  charitable  institutions  until  1910,  although  it  was  amended  in 
unimportant  particulars  in  1887,  1905  and  1907.  The  State  Board  of 
Charities  commended  the  law  as  one  of  the  best  on  the  statute  books ; 
but  it  complained  that  its  own  powers  were  insufficient,  its  functions 
including  merely  the  power  to  investigate  and  recommend. 

In  its  report  for  the  year  1900  (p.  42)  the  Board  thus  described 
the  situation:  "These  fifteen  charitable  institutions  have  forty-nine 
trustees  and  there  are  five  members  of  the  board  of  commissioners  of 
public  charities,  making  in  all  fifty- four  persons  who  are  charged  with 
the  duty  of  seeing  that  these  institutions  are  properly  managed  under 
the  law.  In  addition  they  have  fifteen  local  treasurers.  All  of  the 
institutions  are  under  the  supervision  of  this  board.  Our  duties,  how- 
ever, are  merely  advisory,  we  having  no  real  executive  or  controlling 
power.  Under  the  law  we  are  required  to  visit  each  of  them  at  least 
twice  a  year  to  see  that  the  moneys  appropriated  for  their  support  are 
economically  and  judiciously  expended,  to  see  whether  their  purposes 
are  accomplished  and  whether  the  laws  in  relation  to  them  are  complied 
with.  It  also  requires  us  to  inquire  and  examine  into  their  methods  of 
government  and  management,  the  conduct  of  their  trustees,  officers  and 
employees,  the  condition  of  the  property  and  into  all  matters  pertaining 
to  their  usefulness  and  management.  In  addition  to  this  the  law  re- 
quires us  to  approve  their  accounts.  Notwithstanding  all  these  require- 
ments this  board  as  constituted  has  no  such  executive  power  to  enforce 
any  of  its  recommendations  as  should  be  lodged  in  a  central  governing 
body." 

As  stated  in  the  above  quotation  each  institution  had  its  own 
treasurer  and  each  purchased  its  own  supplies,  the  result  being  a  wide 
variation  of  prices  and  sometimes  of  quality  as  between  the  different 
institutions. 

The  trustees  being  unpaid  gave  only  a  small  portion  of  their  time 
to  the  performance  of  their  duties,  which  tended  to  become  merely 

2.  Founded  as  a  private  institution  in  1858;  aided  by  State  appropriations  be- 
ginning in  1867,  and  organized  as  a  State  institution  in  1871. 

3.  Name  changed  to  the  State  Training  School  for  Girls,  in  1901. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  11 

perfunctory.  Attendance  upon  the  meetings  (ordinarily  there  was  one 
meeting  a  quarter)  was  irregular;  and  instances  were  not  wanting  in 
which  the  control  over  a  particular  institution  was  in  fact  exercised 
for  a  considerable  period  of  time  by  a  single  trustee.  The  natural 
result  of  such  a  system  was  want  of  uniformity  of  policy,  loss  of 
efficiency  and  unnecessary  financial  waste.  As  time  passed  the  dissatis- 
faction with  the  system  increased.  The  State  Board  of  Charities,  the 
State  Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections  and  other  interested 
organizations  inaugurated  a  campaign  for  a  reorganization  of  the  exist- 
ing system.  This  movement  was  supported  by  the  press  and  by  public 
sentiment  generally  and  a  radical  reorganization  was  advocated  by  sev- 
eral legislative  committees  of  investigation. 

The  State  Civil  Service  law  of  1905  was  enacted  to  eliminate 
political  influences  in  the  management  of  these  institutions,  and  at  the 
same  time  centralized  the  selection  of  subordinate  employees,  by  pro- 
viding for  their  appointment  on  the  basis  of  competitive  examinations 
under  the  State  Civil  Service  Commission.  Finally  by  an  Act  approved 
June  15,  1909,  the  former  system  of  administration  for  these  institu- 
tions was  abolished,  and  the  present  centralized  system  was  established. 

2.    Present  Organization. 

With  a  view  to  standardizing  the  administration  of  the  charitable 
institutions,  increasing  the  efficiency  of  their  management  and  securing 
greater  economy  of  their  expenditures,  the  Act  of  1909  abolished  the 
separate  boards  of  trustees  and  managers  and  created  a  single  central 
authority  called  the  Board  of  Administration,  in  whose  hands  were  con- 
centrated the  management  and  control  of  all  the  charitable  institutions, 
though  not  tire  penal  and  reformatory  institutions.  The  latter  were  left 
untouched  by  the  act  of  1909  and  are  still  under  the  management  of 
separate  boards.  The  treasurers  of  the  several  institutions  were  like- 
wise abolished  and  the  funds  of  each  were  required  to  be  transferred 
to  the  State  Treasurer,  who  was  declared  to  be  henceforth  the  custodian 
of  the  funds  of  all  institutions  subject  to  the  control  of  the  Board  of 
Administration,  with  the  exception  of  the  monthly  salary  and  contingent 
funds  which  were  to  be  left  in  the  hands  of  the  superintendent  or  other 
managing  officers.  The  act  directed  that  all  moneys  collected  by  the 
institutional  heads  from  the  sale  of  products  or  from  other  sources 
should  be  transmitted  to  the  State  Treasurer  each  month,  together  with 
a  detailed  statement  to  the  fiscal  supervisor. 

In  addition  the  Act  of  1909  abolished  the  State  Board  of  Charities 
and  created  in  its  place  a  Charities  Commission  to  be  described  here- 
after. It  also  conferred  a  legal  status  on  the  State  Conference  of 
Charities  and  Corrections  by  permitting  various  bodies  to  pay  the  ex- 
penses of  delegates  to  attend  its  sessions. 

The  Board  of  Administration,  created  by  the  Act  of  1909,  is 
composed  of  five  members  appointed  by  the  Governor,  with  the  consent 
of  the  Senate,  and  removable  by  him  for  incompetency,  neglect  of  duty 
or  malfeasance  in  office.  Not  more  than  three  members  of  the  board 
may  belong  to  the  same  political  party ;  one  member  must  be  qualified 
by  experience  to  advise  the  board  regarding  the  care  and  treatment  of 


12  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

the  insane,  the  feeble  minded  and  epileptics ;  one  member  must  be 
designated  by  the  Governor  as  president  of  the  board ;  the  other  three 
members  must  be  reputable  citizens.  The  board  is  required  to  elect 
one  of  its  members  as  fiscal  supervisor  and  one  as  secretary;  and  it  is 
empowered  to  employ  such  other  officers,  agents  and  employes  as  it 
may  deem  necessary  for  the  efficient  conduct  of  its  business. 

The  term  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Administration  is  fixed 
at  six  years  and  the  salary  of  each  member  at  $6,000  per  year  plus  an 
allowance  for  the  necessary  travelling  expenses  incurred  while  in  the 
discharge  of  their  duties.  Each  member  is  required  to  devote  his 
entire  time  to  the  duties  of  his  office. 

The  principal  powers  and  duties  of  the  Board  of  Administration 
may  be  grouped  in  the  following  divisions : 

1.  To  exercise  executive  and  administrative  supervision  over  all  State 
charitable  institutions,  succeeding  to  all  the  property,  rights,  powers  and 
duties  of  the  former  boards  of  trustees,  managers  or  commissioners,  and 
with  power  to  accept  and  hold  grants,  gifts  and  bequests; 

To  appoint  and  remove  the  superintendents  or  managing  officers  of 
the  State  charitable  institutions,  and  (subject  to  the  civil  service  laws) 
all  other  employees  of  the  several  institutions  as  well  as  its  own  employ- 
ees, and  with  the  approval  of  the  civil  service  commission  to  determine 
the  salaries  of  all  institutional  employees  (except  the  superintendent  and 
managing  officers),  which  shall  be  as  nearly  uniform  as  practicable  for 
like  services; 

To  regulate  the  admission  of  inmates  into  the  State  hospitals,  and  to 
cause  the  removal  to  the  State  hospitals  of  all  insane  persons  confined 
in  the  county  almshouses,  and  of  feeble  minded  women  and  children 
from  such  houses  to  the  Lincoln  school  and  colony; 

To  cause  one  of  its  members  to  visit  each  institution  under  its  con- 
trol at  least  once  each  quarter,  and  in  addition  as  often  as  may  be 
'deemed  necessary,  and  to  make  an  inspection  of  every  part  thereof,  in- 
cluding an  examination  of  the  records,  stores,  and  methods  of  admin- 
istration ; 

_To  make  contracts  for  the  purchase  of  material  and  supplies  for  all 
institutions  subject  to  its  control. 

2.  To   inspect   and   investigate   county   jails,   city   prisons,   houses   of 
correction,  workhouses,  and  all  places  in  which  persons  convicted  or 
suspected  of  crime  are  confined,  to  ascertain  their  sanitary  condition  and 
how  the  insane  are  treated ;  no  county,  city  or  village  may  erect,  add  to 
or  remodel  a  jail,  almshouse  (or  similar  institution)  without  submitting 
plans  and  specifications  to  the  board  for  criticism  and  suggestions. 

3.  To   exercise    supervision   over  private   charities,   by   inspecting,   on 
complaint  of  at  least  two  reputable  citizens,  any  charitable  association 
which  appeals  to  the  public  for  aid  or  is  supported  by  trust  funds;  by 
licensing  and  inspecting  all  institutions  or  houses  in  which  persons  are 
detained  for  care  or  treatment  for  mental  or  nervous  diseases ;  by  licens- 
ing (and  revoking  licenses),  and  supervising  home  finding  associations  and 
orphanages,  and  examining  and  reporting  to  the  Secretary  of  State  upon 
the  merits  of  all  associations  for  the  care  of  dependent  or  delinquent 
children  which  seek  incorporation ;  by  the  visitation  of  children  who  have 
been  placed  in  family  homes ;  and  by  the  visitation  and  instruction  of 
the  adult  blind. 

4.  The  board  is  to  report  to  the  Governor  each  year  its  acts,  proceedings 
and  conclusions,  which  report  must  contain  a  complete  financial  statement 
of  the  several  institutions,  and  state  whether  the  moneys  appropriated  for 
their  aid  have  been  economically  and  judiciously  expended,  whether  the 
laws  have  been  complied  with,  and  such  other  information  and  recom- 
mendations as  it  may  deem  proper. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  13 

From  this  summary  it  will  be  seen  that  the  powers  of  the  Board 
of  Administration  are  extensive  and  varied.  They  include  the  powers 
of  visitation,  inspection  and  investigation  over  both  State  and  local 
institutions  and  over  those  which  are  private  as  well  as  those  which  are 
public ;  in  some  cases  it  includes  the  power  of  licensing  and  of  revoking 
licenses  for  certain  reasons.  Over  the  twenty-two  State  institutions 
under  its  jurisdiction  its  power  of  control  is  practically  absolute. 

The  Fiscal  Supervisor  is  elected  by  the  board  from  among  its 
members.  He  is  charged,  under  the  supervision  of  the  board,  with 
examining  into  the  condition  of  all  property  belonging  to  the  charit- 
able institutions,  with  inquiring  into  the  methods  of  bookkeeping,  store- 
keeping  and  all  financial  and  business  operations  generally  of  the  sev- 
eral institutions,  and  with  receiving,  examining  and  presenting  with 
this  opinion  to  the  board  all  plans  and  specifications  for  the  construc- 
tion of  new  buildings.  He  is  empowered  to  require  of  the  managing 
officers  of  the  institutions  the  presentation  of  estimates  of  their  needs, 
which  estimates  he  is  required  to  tabulate  and  present  to  the  board 
with  his  recommendation.  It  is  then  the  duty  of  the  board,  with  the 
approval  of  the  Governor,  to  present  the  needs  of  the  institutions  to 
the  Legislature. 

At  least  once  a  year  the  fiscal  supervisor  is  required  to  call  the 
managing  officers  of  the  several  institutions  to  a  joint  meeting  with  a 
committee  of  the  board  for  the  purpose  of  classifying  the  supplies  and 
estimating  the  requirements  of  each  "institution  so  as  to  provide  for 
their  most  practical  and  economical  purchase.  This  body  is  known  as  the 
Board  of  Joint  Estimate  whose  duty  it  is  to  provide  for  the  purchase 
of  supplies  in  large  quantities  on  contracts  for  periods  not  exceeding 
fifteen  months.  The  law  declares  that  the  purchase  of  all  supplies 
shall  be  on  the  basis  of  competitive  bidding  after  an  advertisement  of 
proposals  in  one  or  more  newspapers  in  each  of  the  seven  largest  cities 
of  the  State.  The  managing  officer  of  each  institution  is  required  to 
present  to  the  fiscal  supervisor  a  detailed  monthly  estimate  of  needed 
supplies,  materials,  salaries,  etc.,  which  estimates  may  be  altered  by 
the  fiscal  supervisor  for  reasons  which  he  is  required  to  give  in  writing. 
Upon  the  filing  by  him  of  a  copy  of  the  estimates  with  the  State  auditor, 
it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  latter  official  to  draw  warrents  on  the  State 
Treasurer  for  the  amounts.  The  salary  and  contingent  funds  for  each 
institution  are  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  managing  officer. 

An  Act  of  1911  provides  for  a  supervising  engineer  to  be  appointed 
by  the  Board  of  Administration,  to  advise  the  boafd  and  the  General 
Assembly  in  matters  relating  to  the  construction,  repair  and  economical 
management  of  the  State  institutions,  and  to  prepare  plans  and  speci- 
fications. 

An  Act  of  1913  creates  the  office  of  State  Deportation  Agent  and 
an  assistant,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Board  of  Administration,  to 
arrange  for  the  deportation  of  alien  inmates  in  the  State  hospitals  and 
other  charitable  institutions. 


14  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

The  staff  of  the  Board  of  Administration  in  October,  1913,  and 

salaries  and  appropriations  in  1913  were  as  follows: 

Per  Year. 

Five  members  of  Board  of  Administration  at  $6,000 $30,000 

Supervising  engineer  ' 

State  Agent,  Home  Visitation 

Deportation  Agent  

Assistant  Deportation  Agent ". 

Total  statutory  positions $42,000 

Chief  clerk   - $2,500 

Statistician    2,100 

Bookkeeper   1,80* 

Storekeeper  and  assistant  bookkeeper 1,80< 

Two  reimbursing  clerks  at  $1,500 3,000 

Two  male  clerks  at  $1,800 3,600 

Two-  male  clerks  and  stenographers  at  $1,200 , 2,40( 

One  female  stenographer 1,200 

Two  female  stenographers  at  $1,000 2,000 

Filing  clerk  1,200 

Messenger    900 

Two  assistant  Home  visitors  at  $1,200 2,400 

One  assistant  Home  visitor 1,000 

One  stenographer 1,000 

One  superintendent  adult  blind 1,40( 

Seven  instructors  adult  blind 3,500      31,800 

Total  salaries   (36  positions) $73,800 

Annual  appropriations  for  expenses — 

Office  and  traveling  expenses $14,000 

Office  and  traveling  expenses  Home  Visitors 5,000 

Clerk  hire  and  tabulating 1,750 

Total  administrative  expenses 20,750 

Total  salaries  and  expenses $94,550 

The  Charities  Commission. 

This  takes  the  place  of  the  old  board  of  charities,  and  is  com- 
posed of  five  persons,  not  more  than  three  of  whom  may  belong  to  the 
same  political  party.  They  are  appointed  by  the  Governor,  with  the 
consent  of  the  Senate,  for  a  term  of  five  years ;  and  the  law  contains 
no  provision  in  regard  to  the  right  of  the  Governor  to  remove  them 
for  cause  or  otherwise.  They  receive  no  compensation  other  than  an 
allowance  for  necessary  travelling  expenses  incurred  in  the  perform- 
ance of  their  duties.  The  commission  is  authorized  to  employ  an 
executive  secretary  at  a  salary  of  $3,600  per  year,  and  such  other 
officers,  agents  and  employees  as  it  may  deem  necessary.  The  powers 
of  the  commission  are  merely  visitorial,  investigational  and  recom- 
mendatory in  character ;  but  they  extend  to  both  State  and  local,  public 
and  private  institutions.  They  include  the  investigation  of  all  State 
charitable  institutions,  especially  the  State  hospitals,  and  certain  local 
institutions,  such  as  county  jails  and  alms  nouses,  with  particular 
reference  to  their  condition  and  management ;  and  the  commission  may 
at  its  discretion  inquire  into  the  equipment,  management  and  policies 
of  all  other  institutions  subject  to  the  supervision  and  inspection  of  the 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  15 

Board  of  Administration,  such  as  orphanages,  lying-in  hospitals,  home- 
finding  associations  and  the  like.  It  also  has  supervision  over  the 
local  boards  of  visitors  to  charitable  institutions,  to  be  described  later. 
The  commission  is  required  to  collect  and  publish  criminal  statistics 
and  to  make  an  annual  report  to  the  Governor,  which  report  shall  con- 
tain such  suggestions  and  recommendations  as  it  deems  necessary  and 
pertinent. 

The  inspectional  duties  of  the  commission  are*  for  the  most  part 
carried  out  by  the  executive  secretary.  He  also  edits  the  Institutional 
Quarterly,  a  publication  dealing  with  the  conditions  and  progress  of 
the  charitable  institutions,  conducts  investigations  of  accidents,  pre- 
pares reports,  arranges  the  program  of  the  annual  meeting  of  the  State 
Conference  of  Charities  and  Corrections,  and,  in  general,  watches  over 
the  execution  of  the  laws  relating  to  the  charitable  institutions. 

The  staff  of  the  charities  commission  and  annual  salaries  and 
appropriations  in  191,3  were  as  follows: 
Five  members,  no  salary  but  expenses  paid  :  -      Per  Year. 

Executive  secretary   * $  3,600 

Assistant  secretary  and  stenographer 1,200 

Stenographer 900 

Inspector  of  institutions •. . . .     1,200 

Messenger  and  janitor 800 

Total  salaries ' $  7,700 

Office  and  traveling  expenses $5,000 

Expenses  of  auxiliary  visitors 1,500 

Expenses  conference  of  charity 750 

Purchase  of  books  for  library 500        7,750 

Total   salaries   and   appropriations $15,450 

Boards  of  Visitors. 

The  Act  of  1909  further  provides  for  a  Board  of  Visitors  for 
each  of  the  several  institutions  under  the  control  of  the  Board  of 
Administration.  Each  board  of  visitors  consists  of  three  members 
appointed  by  the  Governor,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  for  a  term 
of  six  years.  They  receive  no  compensation  for  their  services,  but 
the  law  authorizes  an  allowance  for  the  payment  of  their  expenses. 
It  is  made  their  duty  to  visit  and  inspect  the  institution  for  which  they 
are  appointed  at  least  once  each  quarter  in  the  case  of  institutions 
having  the  whole  State  for  a  district,  and  at  least  once  a  month  in  the 
case  of  institutions  whose  districts  are  fractional  parts  of  the  State. 
They  are  required  to  make  a  written  report  to  the  charities  commission 
within  ten  days  after  such  inspection,  which  report  shall  state  in  detail 
the  condition  of  the  institution  and  of  its  inmates,  and  shall  include 
such  other  matters  pertaining  to  the  management  and  affairs  thereof 
as  it  may  deem  proper.  It  is  further  made  the  duty  of  each  board  to 
make  an  annual  report  to  the  charities  commission  in  regard  to  the 
results  of  its  visits  and  inspections. 

So  far,  this  provision  of  the  law  has  remained  practically  a  dead 
letter,  since  only  one  or  two  such  boards  have  in  fact  been  appointed 
since  the  enactment  of  the  law. 


16 


KI'I'ICIKNCY    AM)    KCoNOMY    COMMITTEE. 


Appropriations. 

The  appropriations  made  in  1913  for  the  administration  and  sup- 
port of  State  charities  for  two  years,  including  salaries  paid  out  of  the 
general  salary  appropriations,  are  shown  below : 
Board  of  Administration : 

Salaries $147,600.00 

Expenses   41,500.00    $      189,100.00 

Charities  Commission : 

Salaries $  15,400.00 

Expenses 15,500.00    $       30,900.00 

Charitable  Institutions : 

Ordinary  operating  expenses $7,123,337.42 

Ordinary  repairs  and  improvements 716,900.00 

Ordinary  care  of  grounds 64,400.00 

Total   ordinary  expenses $7,904,637.42 

Special  appropriations  3,441,814.04    $11,34^,451.46 

Special  Appropriations : 

Cherry  mine   sufferers $43,025.18 

Secretary  Cherry  mine  relief  committee •       600.00 

Relief  of  William  Baker 10,000.00 

Aid  of  B.  C.  B.  Jorgensen 6,540.00 

Aid  of  Henry  Pryor .     2,000.00    $       62,165.18 

Grand  total $11,628,616.64 

ESTIMATES 'FOR  ORDINARY  EXPENSES   AND   SPECIAL   APPROPRIATIONS    FOR 
STATE  CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS, 

Estimates  for 

Ordinary 
Institutions.  Expenses. 

Elgin   State   Hospital $   606,771.32 

Kankakee  State  Hospital 1,090,659.00 

Kankakee  Psychopathic  Institute 34,600.00 

Jacksonville   State  Hospital 580,586.10 

Anna  State  Hospital 599,354.00 

Watertown  State  Hospital 477,896.20 

Peoria   State   Hospital 890,101.30 

Chester   State   Hospital 96,324.00 

Chicago  State  Hospital 1,081,240.00 

Lincoln  State  School  and  Colony 506,722  00 

The  Illinois  School  for  the  Deaf 271,007.00 

The  Illinois  School  for  the  Blind 144,726.80 

The  Illinois  Industrial  Home  for  Blind  64,488.00 
The  Illinois  Soldiers'  and  Sailors  Home  482,180.40 
The  Soldiers'  Widows'  Home  of  Illinois  97,165.00 
The  Illinois  Soldiers'  Orphans'  Home.  .  170,192.30 
The  Illinois  Charitable  Eye  and  Ear  In- 
firmary    110,004.00  110,004.00 

State  Training  School  for  Girls 225,860.00          65,935.47         291,795.47 

St.  Charles  School  for  Boys 374,760.00         206,500.00         581,260.00 

Alton  State  Hospital 500,119.19       *500,119.19 

State  Colony  for  Epileptics 500,000.00         500,000.00 


1913-1915. 

Special 

Appro- 

priations. 

Totals. 

$    151,500.00 

$   758,271.32 

289,898.90 

*tU80,557.90 

34,600.00 

21,190.00 

601,776.10 

200,674.27 

*800,028.27 

217,300.00 

*695.  196.20 

165,700.00 

1,055,801.30 

500.00 

96,824.00 

830,966.21 

*1,912,206.21 

102,000.00 

608,722.00 

2,000.00 

273,007.00 

12,700.00 

157,426.80 

135,750.00 

200,238.00 

15,780.00 

487,960.40 

1,000.00 

98,165.00 

22,300.00 

192,492.30 

Totals $7,904,637.42    $3,441,814.04  $11,346,451.46 


*Includes  re-appropriations  as  follows : 

Kankakee  State  Hospital 

Anna  State  Hospital 

Watertown   State   Hospital 

Chicago  State  Hospital 

Alton  State  Hospital 

fKankakee  (emergency)    


.$  23,348.90 
.  145,274.27 
.  75,000.00 
.  76,666.21 
.  295,119.19 
.  15,000.00 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  17 

C.       PENAL    AND   REFORMATORY    INSTITUTIONS. 

1.     Separate  Boards. 

The  first  State  Penitentiary  was  authorized  in  1827,  and  was 
established  at  Alton.  The  site  and  buildings  were  sold  by  the  State 
when  the  new  penitentiary  at  Joliet  was  provided.  The  Illinois  State 
Penitentiary  at  Joliet  was  authorized  in  1857.  The  Southern  Illinois 
Penitentiary  at  Chester  was  created  by  Act  of  1877.  The  General 
Assembly  in  1867  provided  for  a  State  Reform  School,  which  was 
located  at  Pontiac,  and  this  institution  was  reorganized  in  1891,  and 
its  name  changed  to  the  Illinois  State  Reformatory. 

The  bill  to  establish  the  Board  of  Administration,  as  originally 
drafted  and  reported,  included  the  two  penitentiaries  and  the  reform- 
atory among  the  institutions  placed  under  its  control ;  but  they  were 
stricken  out  during  the  discussion  on  the  bill.  As  finally  passed,  the 
bill  did  not  apply  to  these  three  institutions ;  the  system  under  which 
they  are  managed  and  controlled  remained  as  before.  Instead  of  being 
subject  to  the  administration  of  a  common  board,  as  are  the  charitable 
institutions,  each  remains  under  the  control  of  a  separate  board 
appointed  by  the  Governor,  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate. 

In  the  case  of  the  penitentiaries,  there  is  a  board  of  commissioners 
for  each  institution,  composed  of  three  members  appointed  for  a  term 
of  six  years ;  in  the  case  of  the  reformatory,  there  is  a  board  of  man- 
agers composed  of  five  members  appointed  for  a  term  of  ten  years, 
not  more  than  three  of  whom  shall  belong  to  the  same  political  party. 
The  Governor  is  empowered  to  remove  the  penitentiary  commissioners 
at  his  discretion ;  he  may  remove  the  members  of  the  board  of  managers 
of  the  reformatory  for  misconduct,  incompetency  or  neglect  of  duty 
and  after  opportunity  shall  have  been  given  for  a  hearing  upon  written 
charges.  The  penitentiary  commissioners  are  each  required  to  furnish 
a  bond  for  the  sum  of  $25,000,  which  may  be  increased  by  the  Governor 
and  Auditor  in  certain  contingencies ;  the  members  of  the  board  of 
managers  of  the  reformatory  are  each  required  to  furnish  bonds  to 
the  amount  of  $5,000.  The  compensation  of  members  of  these  boards 
is  fixed  by  law;  for  the  penitentiary  commissioners  it  is  $1,500  per 
annum;  for  the  members  of  the  reformatory  board  it  is  $1,200  per 
annum.  They  are  not  required  to  give  their  whole  time  to  their  official 
duties. 

The  powers  and  duties  of  the  three  boards  are  in  general  the 
same.  They  have  full  control,  management  and  supervision  of  their 
respective  institutions.  They  may  appoint  the  chief  officers  thereof, 
such  as  wardens,  superintendents,  chaplains,  physicians,  etc.,  and  may 
remove  them ;  in  the  case  of  the  penitentiary,  at  their  discretion ;  in  the 
case  of  the  reformatory,  only  after  an  opportunity  has  been  given  the 
accused  to  be  heard  upon  written  charges.  They  may  make  and  enforce 
disciplinary  regulations,  examine  accounts  and  expenditures,  and  exer- 
cise general  supervision  over  the  financial  and  business  affairs  of  the 
institution. 

The  board  of  managers  of  the  reformatory  are  required  to  certify 
jto  the  Governor,  with  their  approval  or  disapproval,  the  accounts  of 


18  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

the  institution;  to  provide  a  thorough  system  of  training  for  every 
inmate  in  the  "common  branches  of  an  English  education"  and  in  such 
trades  and  handicrafts  as  will  enable  him,  upon  his  release,  to  earn 
his  support;  and  to  this  end  they  are  required  to  establish  schools  in 
the  reformatory;  they  are  empowered  to  transfer  incorrigible  inmates 
to  the  penitentiary4;  to  establish  rules  and  regulations  for  the  release 
of  prisoners  on  parole ;  and  it  is  made  their  duty  to  adopt  such  methods 
as  shall  prevent  prisoners  from  returning  to  criminal  habits.  Finally, 
they  are  required  to  report  biennially  to  the  Legislature,  through  the 
Governor,  concerning  the  condition  of  the  reformatory,  which  report 
shall  contain  such  recommendations  as  the  board  may  deem  fit,  together 
with  a  detailed  statement  of  all  moneys  expended. 

The  penitentiary  commissioners  are  required  to  meet  at  the  peni- 
tentiary at  least  once  a  month,  to  keep  minutes  of  their  meetings  and 
proceedings,  make  regulations  concerning  the  quality  and  quantity  of 
food  for  prisoners,  and  the  number  of  hours  of  labor  required  of  them 
per  day,  and  to  enter  into  contracts  for  the  purchase  of  provisions, 
clothing,  medicine,  forage,  fuel,  and  other  supplies  for  any  period  not 
exceeding  one  year.  They  are  required  to  make  an  annual  inventory 
and  appraisement  of  all  property  of  the  institution,  and  to  report  to 
the  Governor  biennially  concerning  the  condition  of  their  respective 
institutions,  particularly  with  respect  to  all  moneys  received  and  ex- 
pended, and  of  all  contracts  entered  into.  Unlike  the  board  of  man- 
agers of  the  reformatory,  they  do  not  have  the  power  to  release 
prisoners  on  parole,  that  power  being  conferred  upon  the  Board  of 
Pardons. 

It  will  be  observed  that  while  the  administrative  organizations  of 
the  two  penitentiaries  are  identical,  the  laws  which  apply  to  one  apply- 
ing at  the  same  time  to  the  other,  there  are  some  differences  between 
their  organization  and  that  of  the  reformatory.  These  differences 
relate  principally  to  the  organization,  size,  name,  term  and  compensa- 
tion of  the  two  classes  of  boards.  The  reformatory  board  is  larger 
in  size,  the  salaries  of  its  members  are  smaller,  and  it  is  bipartisan  in 
organization ;  its  members  have  terms  almost  twice  as  long  as  those  of 
the  penitentiary  commissioners,  and  they  may  be  removed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor only  for  cause  and  after  a  hearing  upon  written  charges,  whereas 
he  may  remove  the  penitentiary  commissioners  at  his  discretion  and 
without^  hearing;  the  bond  required  of  the  penitentiary  commissioners 
is  five  times  as  large  as  that  required  of  members  of  the  reformatory 
board;  the  wardens  of  the  penitentiary  may  be  removed  by  the  com- 
missioners at  their  discretion,  whereas  the  superintendent  of  the  re- 
formatory ^can  only  be  removed  for  cause  and  after  a  hearing ;  the 
Governor  is  required  to  visit  the  penitentiaries  twice  a  year  and 
examine  into  their  condition,  but  no  such  duty  is  imposed  upon  him  in 
respect  to  the  reformatory ;  and,  finally,  the  board  of  managers  of  the 
reformatory  is  required  to  report  to  the  Legislature,  whereas  the 
penitentiary  commissioners  report  to  the  Governor. 

4.  Held  unconstitutional  in  the  case  of  People  v.  Mallary  195  111  582  on  the 
pound  that  the  transferring  of  inmates  from  the  reformatory  to  the'  penitentiary 
involves  the  exercise  of  Judicial  pow«r,  which  the  Legislature  cannot  confer  upon  an 
Xlnlnntratlya  body. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  19 

• 

In  general,  the  law  defines  the  duties  of  the  penitentiary  commis- 
sioners with  much  more  detail  than  those  of  the  board  of  managers 
of  the  reformatory.  Whether,  in  view  of  the  very  similar  character  of 
the  reformatory  and  the  penitentiaries,  the  more  important  of  these 
differences  in  the  organization  by  which  they  are  controlled  and  man- 
aged are  justified,  is  a  question  which  is  worthy  of  consideration. 

2.  Board  of  Prison  Industries. 

In  addition  to  the  above  mentioned  powers  and  duties,  the  members 
of  the  three  boards  of  control  collectively  constitute  the  Board  of 
Prison  Industries  of  Illinois,  although  they  receive  no  extra  compensa- 
tion on  account  of  this  additional  duty.  This  board,  created  by  an 
Act  approved  May  11,  1903  (amended  by  an  Act  of  May  18,  1905,  and 
by  an  Act  of  June  16,  1909)  was  charged  with  putting  into  effect  the 
laws  relating  to  prison  industries.  It  was  made  their  duty  to  establish 
a  system  ot  prison  industry  in  each  institution,  mainly  for  the  manufac- 
ture of  supplies  for  the  State  and  its  institutions;  to  attend  to  the 
disposition  and  distribution  of  the  products  of  convict  labor;  to  see 
that  no  such  products  should  be  sold  in  the  open  market,  except  where 
the  demands  of  the  State,  its  institutions  and  school  and  road  districts 
for  such  products  shall  not  be  sufficient  to  furnish  employment  to  all  the 
prisoners.  In  the  latter  case  the  Board  of  Prison  Industries  may  em- 
ploy not  more  than  40  per  cent  of  the  convicts  in  the  manufacture  of 
products  for  sale  in  the  open  market,  except  that  under  the  direction  of 
the  Governor  the  board  may  employ  not  more  than  40  per  cent  of  said 
prisoners  for  the  improvement  of  the  channels  of  the  Okaw,  Cache, 
Little  Wabash,  Big  Muddy,  Saline  and  Sangamon  rivers.  This  board 
is  also  required  to  furnish  crushed  rock  and  other  manufactured  road 
material  produced  by  convicts  to  the  State  Highway  Commission.  The 
aggregate  value  of  products  manufactured  during  the  year  1912  was 
$577,943,  of  which  $290,601  represented  the  output  of  the  penitentiary 
at  Joliet,  $216,601  that  of  the  penitentiary  at  Chester,  and  $70,437  that 
of  the  reformatory  at  Pontiac.  In  January,  1905,  the  board  established 
a  central  office  in  Springfield  and  appointed  a  sales  manager  to  take 
charge  of  it. 

3.  Board  of  Classification. 

The  president  of  the  board  of  prison  industries,  the  president  of 
the  State  Board  of  Public  Charities  (Board  of  Administration)  and  the 
Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  constitute  a  board  of  classification  which 
is  authorized  to  fix  and  determine  the  schedule  of  prices  of  all  labor 
performed  and  of  all  articles  manufactured  and  furnished  to  the  State 
or  the  institutions  thereof. 

4.  Penitentiary  Commission. 

In  addition  to  the  three  boards  for  the  management  of  the  existing 
correctional  institutions,  there  was  created,  by  Act  of  1907,  another 
commission  known  as  the  penitentiary  commission.  This  commission 
consists  of  three  members,  appointed  by  the  Governor,  no  definite  term 
being  named.  This  commission  is  authorized  to  acquire  land  for  a 


20  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

new  penitentiary  and  hospital  for  the  insane  criminals,  to  prepare  plans 
and  specifications  for  all  necessary  buildings,  and  to  control  the  con- 
struction of  said  buildings. 

5.    State  Board  of  Pardons.    • 

Another  State  board  whose  functions  relate  to  the  inmates  of  cor- 
rectional institutions  is  the  State  Board  of  Pardons,  established  in  1897. 
This  board  consists  of  three  members,  appointed  by  the  Governor,  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  for  terms  of  three  years, 
one  member  retiring  each  year.  Not  more  than  two  members  may 
belong  to  the  same  political  party.  The  Governor  may  remove  any 
member  for  misconduct,  incompetency  or  neglect  of  duty. 

The  State  Board  of  Pardons  gives  hearings  on  applications  for 
pardons,  reprieves  and  commutations  addressed  to  the  Governor,  and 
makes  a  report  upon  each  case  to  the  Governor.  The  rejports  and 
recommendations  of  the  board  are  advisory  only,  to  aid  the  Governor 
in  exercising  his  constitutional  power  of  pardon.  Regular  meetings 
of  the  board  are  required  by  law  to  be  held  on  the  second  Tuesday  of 
January,  April,  July  and  October  of  each  year.  Special  meetings  may 
be  called  by  the  Governor  or  the  chairman  of  the  board.  In  practice, 
monthly  meetings  are  held  at  Joliet  and  Menard. 

By  Act  of  1899,  the  Board  of  Pardons  was  given  power  to  establish 
rules  and  regulations  under  which  prisoners  in  the  penitentiaries  might 
be  allowed  on  parole  outside  the  penitentiary  buildings,  and  also  to 
grant  parole  leave  to  such  prisoners.  The  board  of  managers  of  the 
State  reformatory  has  similar  powers  in  regard  to  prisoners  in  that 
institution.  Thus  the  work  of  the  Board  of  Pardons  embraces  two 
separate  and  distinct  functions :  that  of  examining  applications  for 
executive  clemency,  and  that  of  passing  upon  cases  of  prisoners  who 
desire  to  be  released  on  parole  or  to  have  their  sentences  definitely  fixed. 
The  parole  work  occupies  the  attention  of  the  board  about  two  weeks 
of  every  month. 

The  original  act  creating  the  Board  of  Pardons  fixed  their  salaries 
at  $2,000  per  year  and  an  allowance  of  5  cents  per  mile  to  cover  their 
traveling  expenses.  The  Act  of  1899  relating  to  parole  provided  that 
the  members  should  receive  $1,500  for  each  year  for  services  performed 
in  pursuance  thereof,  making  their  total  salary  $3,500  per  year,  plus 
traveling  expenses. 

A  clerk  is  appointed  by  the  board,  at  an  annual  salary  of  $2,000, 
whose  duty  it  is  to  receive,  file  and  safely  keep  all  papers  and  docu- 
ments and  a  record  of  the  proceedings  and  recommendations  of  the 
board.  The  board  also  employs  a  stenographer  at  a  salary  of  $1,200 
per  annum.  The  total  expenses  for  the  two  years  1910-12  were 
$31,923.27. 


CHARITABLE   AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS. 


21 


The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  parole  cases  acted  upon 
by  the  Board  t>f  Pardons  during  the  year  1913  at  the  Joliet  and  Chester 
penitentiaries : 


PAROLE  CASES:     STATE  BOARD  OF  PARDONS,   1913. 


Month. 

Joliet. 

Chester. 

Cases  on 
docket. 

Ordered 
paroled. 

Sentences 
fixed  or 
otherwise 
handled. 

Totals. 

Cases  on 
docket. 

Ordered 
paroled. 

Sentences 
fixed  or 
otherwise 
handled. 

Totals. 

January  

76 
65 
59 
67 

65 
44 

67 
70 
83 
74 
84 
78 

25 
25 
36 
23 
29 
22 
26 
31 
41 
41 
43 
31 

51 
40 
23 
44 
36 
22 
41 
39 
42 
33 
41 
47 

76 
65 
59 
67 
65 
44 
67 
70 
83 
74 
84 
78 

21 

128 
72 
27 
74 
82 
21 
64 
99 
63 
43 
50 

21 
41 
48 
27 
33 
.35 
21 
17 
66 
34 
23 
23 

0 
87 
24 
0 
41 
47 
0 
47 
33 
29 
20 
27 

21 

128 
72 
27 
74 
82 
21 
64 
99 
63 
43 
50   ' 

February    .  .  A  . 
March   

April       

May    

June  

July   

August    

September   .... 
October           .  . 

November    .... 
December  ....  . 

Totals.  . 

832 

373 

459 

832     II     744 

389 

355         744 

The  following  table  shows  the  number  of  final  discharges  under 
the  parole  law  ordered  by  the  board  of  pardons  during  the  year  1913 
at  the  two  penitentiaries  and  the  reformatory: 


FINAL  DISCHARGES  UNDER  THE  PAROLE  LAW,    1913. 


Months. 

Joliet. 

Chester. 

Pontiac. 

Totals. 

January    

19 

8 

9 

36 

February  

12 

16 

20 

48 

March    

19 

34 

16 

69 

April   ,  • 

10 

8 

25 

43 

May  

14 

17 

23 

54 

June   

27 

21 

15 

63 

July  . 

19 

13 

36 

68 

Augu  st    

6 

19 

15 

40 

September  

36 

28 

17 

81 

October   

23 

34 

20 

77 

November   

22 

17 

22 

61 

December    

16 

16 

24 

56 

Totals. 


223 


231 


242 


696 


The  following  table  is  a  summary  of  all  cases  handled  by  the 
State  board  of  pardons  under  the  parole  law  (not  including  pardon 
cases)  for  the  year  1913: 


22  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

ALL  CASES:  STATE  BOARD  OF  PARDONS,  1913. 


;-• 

Joliet. 

Chester. 

• 
Pontiac. 

Totals. 

Paroled     

373 

389 

762 

Sentences    fixed    or    other- 
wise handled           

459 

355 

814 

Final  discharges       

223 

231 

242 

696 

Specials,  estimated  

300 

225 

525 

Total  number  of  cases  handled,  2,797. 

D.      COMPARISON  OF  THE  CHARITABLE  AND  PENAL  SYSTEMS  OF  ADMINIS- 
TRATION. 

Although  the  two  classes  of  institutions  (charitable  and  penal)' 
are  in  many  respects  similar,  and  in  any  strictly  scientific  or  logical 
scheme  of  administrative  organization  would  be  subject  to  the  same 
system  of  management  and  control,  they  have  in  fact  very  different 
organizations  based  upon  opposite  principles  of  government. 

The  management  and  control  of  the  charitable  institutions,  and 
these,  as  has  been  said,  include  some 'that  are  in  a  sense  not  strictly 
charitable,  but  in  a  sense  correctional,  reformatory  and  educational,  are 
concentrated  in  a  single  central  body  which  gives  all  its  time  to  the 
service  with  which  it  is  charged;  while  the  management  and  control 
of  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  proper  are  divided  between 
different  boards,  one  for  each  institution,  the  members  of  which  are 
paid  small  salaries  and  are  not  required  to  devote  their  entire  time  to 
the  discharge  of  their  official  duties.  Furthermore,  while  the  law 
requires  that  one  member  of  the  Board  of  Administration  of  the  char- 
itable institutions  shall  be  a  trained  specialist  in  the  care  and  treatment 
of  those  committed  to  the  institutions  under  its  management,  there  is 
no  such  requirement  in  respect  to  the  boards  of  control  of  the  penal 
and  reformatory  institutions,  and  in  fact  these  boards  are  generally 
composed  of  persons  who  have  no  special  qualifications,  either  from 
experience  or  training,  for  penological  administration. 

For  the  charitable  institutions  there  is  a  single  central  treasurer 
(the  State  Treasurer),  whereas  each  of  the  penal  and  reformatory 
institutions  has  its  own  local  treasurer  (the  warden  or  superintendent). 
In  the  fiscal  supervisor  the  charitable  institutions  have. a  financial  and 
business  manager,  and  provision  is  made  for  estimating  the  aggregate 
amount  of  the  necessary  supplies  for  all  the  institutions,  and  these  are 
required  to  be  purchased,  as  far  as  practicable,  in  large  quantities  upon 
the  basis  of  competitive  bids.  They  are  then  allotted  to  the  various 
institutions  on  the  basis  of  monthly  estimates.  In  the  case  of  the  penal 
and  reformatory  institutions,  there  is  no  common  business  or  financial 
agent,  no  joint  purchase  of  supplies — in  fact,  the  law  scarcely  deals 
with  the  subject  of  financial  management,  the  purchase  of  supplies  and 
the  like,  except  to  declare  that  the  wardens  of  the  penitentiaries  shall 
attend  to  the  fiscal  concerns  under  the  direction  of  the  commissioners, 
and  shall  act  under  their  direction  in  making  contracts  for  the  purchase 
of  supplies.  The  law  relating  to  the  reformatory  deals  still  less  with 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  23 

these  matters.     It  is,  therefore,  left  to  each  institution  to  adopt  such  « 
business  and  financial  methods  as  it  may  see  fit.     Consequently  there 
is  no  uniformity  of  accounting,  of  keeping  institution  records  or  of 
purchasing  supplies. 

For  the  charitable  institutions  an  elaborate  system  of  visitation, 
inspection  and  investigation  has  been  provided,  with  a  view  to  insuring 
efficient  and  economical  management  and  the  keeping  of  the  institutions 
up  to  a  high  standard  of  efficiency.  This  inspectional  machinery  is 
triple  in  character. 

1.  The  Board  of  Administration  itself  is  required  by  the  law  to 
visit  and  inspect  the  institutions  under  its  control,  it  being  made  the 
duty  of  one  member  to  visit  each  institution  at  least  four  times  a  year 
and  as  many  other  times  as  the  board  may  deem  necessary. 

2.  With  a  view  to  securing  the  benefit  of  criticism  and  suggestion 
by  those  who  are  not  active  administrative  officers — the  need  of  which 
is  important,  since  the  Board  of  Administration  is  primarily  an  admin- 
istrative body,  and  may  be  disposed  to  emphasize  considerations  of 
economy  and  business  management  to  the  neglect  of  the  proper  care 
and  treatment  of  the  inmates  of  the  institutions — the  law  created  the 
Charities  Commission  and  charged  it  especially  with  the  duty  of  inves- 
tigating the  condition  and  management  of  all  the  institutions  under 
the  authority  of  the  board,  and  of  reporting  to  the  Governor  the 
results  of  its  investigations,  with  such  recommendations  and  sugges- 
tions as  it  might  deem  necessary  and  pertinent. 

3.  Finally,  provision  is  made  for  the  inspection  of  each  charitable 
institution,  by  a  local  board  of  visitors,  at  least  four  times  a  year  in 
the  case  of  state-wide  institutions,  and  at  least  once  a  month  in  the 
case  of  those  whose  districts  are  fractional  parts  of  the  State. 

But  in  the  case  of  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions,  no 
visitorial  and  inspection  machinery  has  been  provided  other  than  that 
of  the  boards  of  managers.  The  Charities  Commission  has  no  power 
to  visit  and  inspect  either  the  penitentiaries  or  the  reformatory ;  and 
no  provision  has  been  made  for  their  inspection  by  local  boards  of 
visitors,  as  in  the  case  with  the  charitable  institutions.  Thus,  whereas 
the  administrative  methods  and  policies  of  the  board  which  manages 
and  controls  the  charitable  institutions  are  subject  to  the  inspection 
and  investigation  of  two  entirely  separate  and  independent  bodies,  those 
of  the  penitentiary  and  reformatory  boards  are  subject  to  the  inspection 
of  no  authority  but  themselves. 

Advantages  of  the  Central  Board  System. 

In  favor  of  the  single  central  board  system  the  following  advan- 
tages are  claimed: 

1.  It  is  a  system  by  which  uniformity  in  the  organization  and  admin- 
istration of  the  various  institutions  may  be  secured.  Under  such  a  system 
the  central  board  may  be  made  a  clearing  house  of  statistical  information 
relating  to  the  condition  of  inmates,  admissions,  discharges,  releases  on 
parole,  accidents,  deaths,  etc.  It  makes  possible  the  standardization  ot 
services  and  as  a  result  conduces  to  economy  and  efficiency.  Under  it 
uniformity  of  policies  and  methods,  uniformity  of  financial  accounting, 
uniformity  of  records  and  reports  generally,  uniformity  of  salaries,  wages, 


24 


EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 
DIAGRAM  I. 


CO 

o 

cr> 


s 


3 


UJ 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS. 


25 


DIAGRAM  II. 


26  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

and  prices,  uniformity  of  standards  of  diet — quality  and  quantity  of  food 
and  other  supplies — may  be  secured  as  between  the  various  institutions. 
Justice  requires  that  there  should  be  equality  of  treatment  as  between  the 
different  institutions,  which  it  is  difficult  to  secure  where  each  institution 
is  treated  as  a  separate  unit  and  is  under  the  management  and  control  of  a 
separate  board.  There  is  always  a  possibility  that  some  of  them  will  get 
more  than  they  really  need,  while  others  will  get  less.  The  central  board 
system  also  affords  the  means  of  eliminating  rivalry  among  local  boards 
for  appropriations.  In  some  states  where  the  separate  board  system  pre- 
vails there  is  a  tendency  to  regard  the  State  institutions  as  local,  and  a 
strong  local  pressure  is  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Legislature  for  large 
appropriations,  because  the  larger  they  are  the  more  money  will  be  avail- 
able for  expenditures  in  the  community  interested.  Instances  are  alleged 
in  which  local  boards  with  stronger  political  influences  have  been  able  to 
obtain  from  the  Legislature  larger  appropriations  than  the  actual  needs  of 
the  institution  required,  while  others  suffered  from  inadequate  appropria- 
tions. [See  letter  from  C.  C.  Aspinwall,  Secretary,  State  Board  of  Control 
of  the  State  of  Washington  in  the  special  report  of  the  Illinois  State  Board 
of  Charities  to  Governor  Deneen,  1908,  p.  57.] 

2.  The  central  board  system  conduces  to  economy  through  the  elim- 
ination of  duplicate  local  institutional  officials,  such  as  commissioners, 
treasurers,  bookkeepers,  etc. ;  it  makes  possible  a  more  rigorous  super- 
vision of  financial  expenditures  and  through  the  centralization  of  the  pur- 
chase of  supplies  for  all  the  institutions,  it  is  possible  to  purchase  in  larger 
quantities  and  at  lower  rates.  These  supplies  may  then  be  distributed 
among  the  institutions  from  time  to  time  on  the  basis  of  their  actuab  needs. 
It  is  the  experience  in  other  states  where  the  separate  board  system  pre- 
vails, and  it  was  true  in  this  State  under  the  former  system  of  administer- 
ing the  charitable  institutions,  that  there  is  a  wide  variation  as  between  the 
different  institutions  in  respect  to  the  prices  paid  for  supplies  and  a  varia- 
tion in  the  quality  as  well.  Sometimes  the  supplies  for  each  institution  are 
purchased  from  local  dealers  (in  obedience  to  the  pressure  of  local  de- 
mand) at  retail  prices  as  they  are  needed,  sometimes  without  weighing, 
measuring  or  testing. 

A  committee  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  in  1908  criticised  the  boards  of 
two  of  the  State  institutions  for  purchasing  most  of  their  supplies  from 
local  dealers  in  small  quantities' instead  of  by  contract  at  wholesale  prices. 
The  secretary  of  the  New  York  Commission  in  Lunacy  recently  testified 
that  the  prices  paid  for  coffee  by  the  different  institutions,  before  the 
system  of  joint  purchase  was  introduced,  ranged  from  16  cents  a  pound 
for  coffee  that  was  two-thirds  chicory,  to  22  cents  a  pound,  whereas  now 
good  coffee  is  purchased  for  all  the  institutions  at  10  cents  a'  pound.  When 
the  hospitals  bought  carbon  paper,  pens,  tooth  brushes,  typewriter  ribbons, 
etc.,  separately,  he  says,  the  prices  paid  varied  from  $6.00  to  $9.00  per 
dozen  in  the  case  of  ribbons,  whereas  they  are  now  purchased  in  large  lots 
and  furnished  to  the  institutions  at  $4.25  per  dozen.  Pens  which  formerly 
cost  $1.50  per  box  now  cost  $1.00,  and  a  better  quality  of  supplies  is  now 
obtained.  (See  report  Illinois  State  Board  of  Charities,  1908,  pp. 207-208.) 
In  Illinois  the  same  conditions  prevailed  in  respect  to  the  purchase  of  sup- 
plies for  the  charitable  institutions  when  each  was  governed  by  a  separate 
board. 

It  was  found  in  1908  that  the  average  prices  paid  for  coal  at  the 
seventeen  charitable  institutions  varied  from  $1.24  a  ton  at  the  Southern 
Hospital  for  the  Insane  at  Anna  to  $4.20  a  ton  at  the  Eye  and  Ear 
Infirmary  at  Chicago.  (See  Diagram  I.)  A  committee  of  the  Legislature 
in  1908  reported  that  at  several  of  the  institutions  there  were  no  scales  for 
the  weighing  of  coal  or  other  methods  for  determining  whether  the  institu- 
tion was  receiving  the  amount  for  which  it  paid.  Where  it  was  weighed, 
and  checked,  as  at  Kankakee,  there  was  found  a  marked  difference  be- 
tween the  institution  weights  and  those  of  the  contractors.  Likewise  the 
prices  paid  for  flour  ranged  from  $1.95  per  100  pounds  at  Anna  to  $2.78  at 


CHARITABLE   AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  27 

the  Home  for  the  Blind  in  Chicago.     (Report  Illinois  State  Board  of 
Charities,  pp.  29-31,  1908.    See  Diagram  II.) 

These  inequalities  have  been  eliminated  since  the  introduction  of  the 
system  of  joint  purchase  for  all  the  institutions  and  by  means  of  purchases 
in  large  quantities  lower  prices  are  secured.  For  example,  cpal  is  now 
purchased  for  all  the  institutions  upon  contract,  the  award  being  given  to 
the  lowest  bidder  after  an  advertisement  of  proposals.  Samples  are  re- 
quired to  be  submitted  by  the  contractor  and  these  are  analyzed  at  the 
State  University,  and  the  price  paid  is  determined  on  the  basis  of  these 
analyses,  whereas  formerly  the  institutions  paid  for  cojil  regardless  of  dirt 
and  cleanings  from  the  mines.  If  the  coal  delivered  shows  a  heat-pro- 
ducing capacity  in  excess  of  the  standard,  the  contractor  is  paid  accordingly 
and  vice  versa.  (Institution  Quarterly,  March,  1913,  p.  156.)  So  in  regard 
to  the  purchase  of  other  supplies.  The  board  specifies  a  uniform  quality 
for  articles  used  by  all  the  institutions  and  the  quality  specified  is  quite 
different  from  that  required  before  1910.  For  example,  beef  must  weigh 
not  less  than  575  pounds  to  the  carcass,  and  a  uniform  weight  is  required 
in  the  case  of  bacon  and  hams.  One  grade  of  flour  is  now  purchased  for 
all  the  institutions,  whereas  formerly  many  different  grades  were  fur- 
nished. The  same  is  true  in  respect  to  tea,  coffee,  sugar  and  potatoes. 
Formerly  an  inferior  grade  of  butterine  was  purchased  by  many  of  the 
charitable  institutions  (and  is  still  done  by  one  of  the  penitentiaries 
and  the  reformatory)  ;  now  a  uniform  quality  is  purchased  for  all  the 
institutions,  so  that  there  is  no  discrimination  in  this  respect  against 
inmates  of  any  institution. 

The  abolition  of  the  separate  boards  of  trustees  of  the  charitable 
institutions  and  the  consolidation  of  control  in  a  single  central  board  made 
it  possible  to  establish  uniformity  among  the  various  institutions  in 
respect  to  salaries,  wages,  number  of  employees,  accounting,  prices  of 
supplies  and  materials,  and,  in  general,  to  standardize  the  services,  diets, 
quality  of  food  and  supplies,  methods  of  keeping  records,  etc.  Among  the 
penal  and  reformatory  institutions,  however,  differences  in  respect  to  most 
of  these  matters  still  exist  and  will  continue  to  exist  so  long  as  the  insti- 
tutions are  managed  by  separate  boards.  Some  of  these  differences  may 
be  noted.  First,  in  respect  to  salaries :  The  compensation  of  the  peniten- 
tiary commissioners  is  $1,500  per  year;  that  of  the  reformatory  manager 
is  $1,200  per  year.  The  salary  of  the  warden  of  the  penitentiary  at  Joliet 
is  $5,000  per  year,  that  at  Chester  $4,000  per  year  and  that  of  the  superin- 
tendent of  the  reformatory  $4,000.  The  deputy  warden  at  Joliet  receives 
a  salary  of  $2,200  per  year;  that  of  Chester  $1,500.  The  physician  at  the 
Joliet  penitentiary  receives  $2,300  per  year;  at  the  Southern  penitentiary 
he  receives  $1,500.  There  are  five  parole  agents  at  Joliet,  while  at  Chester, 
with  about  the  same  number  of  prisoners,  there  are  only  two. 

In  respect  to  certain  items  of  expenditure,  the  differences  among  the 
three  institutions  are  in  some  instances  very  great.  Thus  for  the  fiscal 
year  ending  September  30,  1912,  the  disbursements  for  salaries  at  the 
Chester  penitentiary,  with  an  average  of  1,088  inmates,  amounted  to 
$55,977,  while  those  at  Pontiac,  with  only  690  inmates,  amounted  to 
$77,126.  The  number  of  employees  at  the  Joliet  penitentiary  was  116;  at 
Chester  109,  and  at  Pontiac  107.  The  disbursements  for  bedding  and 
clothing  at  the  Joliet  penitentiary,  with  an  average  of  1,394  prisoners, 
amounted  to  a  trifle  more  than  those  at  Pontiac,  with  half  the  number  of 
inmates.  The  expenses  on  account  of  motive  power,  light  and  steam 
amounted  to  $53,380  at  Joliet  and  $9,523  at  Chester;  the  office  expenses  of 
the  two  institutions  were  $3,461  and  $1,891,  respectively  (for  the  year 
ending  September  30,  1911,  they  were  $9,119  and  $1,068,  respectively)  ; 
traveling  expenses,  $2,498  and  $1,040,  respectively.  For  the  year  ending 
September  30,  1911,  the  expenditures  on  account  of  laundry  amounted  to 
$334  at  Chester  and  $1,285  at  Pontiac;  in  the  following  year  the  amounts 
were  $225  and  $1,462,  respectively. 


28  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

With  regard  to  the  amount  and  quality  of  food  consumed,  there  are 
striking  differences  among  the  institutions.  Thus,  during  the  year  ending 
September  30,  1911,  the  number  of  pounds  of  coffee  purchased  at  Chester 
was  11,235,  whereas  at  Joliet,  with  nearly  30  per  cent  more  prisoners,  the 
amount  was  6,282.  During  the  year  1912  Chester  purchased  20,874  pounds 
of  sugar,  Joliet  11.663  pounds;  on  the  other  hand,  Joliet  purchased  8,909 
bushels  of  potatoes  and  Chester  but  4,475 ;  Joliet  consumed  10,079  pounds 
of  rice  and  Chester  4,414  pounds.  The  expenditure  for  meats  amounted  to 
$31,346  at  Joliet  and  $25,941  at  Pontiac,  ^with  about  half  the  number  of 
inmates.  At  Chester  the  prisoners  were  fed  on  butter  costing  33  cents  per 
pound;  at  Jolu*  on  "butter"  costing  12  cents  per  pound  (evidently  butter- 
ine),  and  at  Pontiac  on  "butter"  costing  13  cents  per  pound.  Chester 
used  14,058  pounds  of  lard  and  Joliet  only  120  pounds,  butterine  apparently 
being  used  instead.  At  Chester  the  price  paid  for  beef  ranged  from  11 
to  1&/2  cents  per  pound;  at  Pontiac  11  cents,  and  at  Joliet  9.7  cents. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  is  no  standard  of  subsistence,  no 
uniformity  in  respect  to  rations  in  the  several  institutions.  In  one,  meat 
constitutes  a  much  larger  proportion  of  the  ration  than  in  the  others;  in 
one,  syrup  is  served  the  prisoners  much  more  extensively  than  in  others; 
in  one,  a  much  higher  grade  of  meat  is  served  than  in  the  others;  and  in 
some  the  prisoners  are  fed  on  butterine,  while  in  others  they  are  served 
butter.  Whether  such  varying  standards  of  diet  involving,  as  they  do, 
unequal  treatment  of  the  inmates  of  the  several  institutions,  should  be 
permitted,  is  a  question  which  deserves  consideration.  They  do  not  exist 
in  the  charitable  institutions,  and  have  not  existed  since  these  institutions 
came  under  the  control  of  the  Board  of  Administration.  It  naturally  fol- 
lows from  these  facts  that  the  per  capita  cost  of  subsistence  in  the  several 
institutions  varies  more  or  less  widely.  At  Joliet,  the  per  capita  total 
expenditures  for  the  year  ending  September  30,  1912,  amounted  to  $179.84 ; 
at  Chester,  $201.26,  and  at  Pontiac  $255.35.  The  estimated  per  capita  net 
cost  of  maintenance  per  day  is  48  cents  at  Joliet,  54  cents  at  Chester  (this 
includes  an  estimated  charge  for  food  supplies  from  the  prison  farm),  and 
70  cents  at  Pontiac.  The  lowest  of  these  figures  (that  for  the  Joliet  peni- 
tentiary) is  considerably  higher  than  the  per  capita  cost  in  the  insane 
hospitals  (with  about  the  same  number  of  inmates)  under  the  Board  of 
Administration,  which  ranged  in  1910-12  from  $130.12  at  the  Jacksonville 
hospital  to  $170.32  at  the  Chicago  hospital,  and  averaged  about  $140.00. 
The  average  per  capita  cost  in  the  correctional  institutions  for  1911-12  was 
$208.00.  If  the  penitentiaries  and  reformatories  were  maintained  at  the 
same  per  capita  cost  as  the  insane  hospitals,  there  would  be  a  saving  of 
more  than  $200,000  a  year. 

So  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  there  has  been  a  marked  saving  in  the 
cost  of  maintaining  the  seventeen  charitable  institutions  since  they  were 
placed  under  the  control  of  the  Board  of  Administration.  On  account  of 
the  increased  cost  of  foodstuffs  and  other  supplies  during  recent  years, 
however,  the  reduction  in  the  per  capita  cost  of  supplies  has  naturally  not 
been  considerable.  During  the  past  two  years,  for  example,  the  price  of 
beef  in  some  instances  has  increased  40  per  cent,  and  there  has  been  a 
marked  advance  in  the  price  of  many  other  articles.  From  the  following 
statement,  prepared  for  the  Efficiency  and  Economy  Committee  by  Hon. 
F.  D.  Whipp,  fiscal  supervisor,  in  March,  1914,  it  appears  that  there  has 
been  a  reduction  in  the  ordinary  operating  expenses  of  the  institutions 
during  the  four  years  since  the  creation  of  the  board  of  $418,450.33. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS. 


29 


STATEMENT  No.  1. — SHOWING  GROSS  COST  OF  MAINTAINING  THE 

INMATES      OF      THE      ILLINOIS      CHARITABLE      INSTITUTIONS      FOR      THE 

YEARS  1909,  1910,  1911,  1912  AND  1913,  BASED  ON  THE  ORDINARY  OPER- 
ATING PER  CAPITA  COSTS,  SHOWING  EXPENDITURES  OF  THE  BOARD  OF 
ADMINISTRATION  AND  MAKING  ALLOWANCES  FOR  THE  CHANGE  IN  THE 
BASIS  OF  APPROPRIATIONS  MADE  BY  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY. 


Gross  cost  of  maintaining  inmates  based  on  15,705.98, 
the  average  number  present  during  the  calendar 
year  1910 : 


Cost  on 

Current  Per 

Capita,   Plus 

Additional 

Items. 


Total  on 

1909 
Per  Capita. 


15,705.98,  at  $194.87  gross  per  capita,  cost  1909 $  3,060.624.32 

15,705.98,  at  $175.35  gross  per  capita,  cost  1910 $  2,754,043.47 

Expenditures  of  Board  of  Administration,  1910 58,400.68 

Gross  cost  of  maintaining  inmates  based  on  15,860.40, 

the  average  number  present  during  the  calendar 

year  1911: 

15,860.40,  at  $194.87  gross  per  capita,  1909 3,090,716.14 

15,860.40,  at  $172.22  gross  per  capita,  1911 2,731,401.41 

Expenditures  of  Board  of  Administration,  1911....         67,145.70 
Increase  in  bills  incurred  for  repairs,  improvements 

and  grounds  six  months  (basis  of  appropriation 

changed)    57,242.31 

Gross  cost  of  maintaining  inmates  based  on  15,956.50, 

the  average  number  present  during  the  calendar 

year  1912: 

15,956.50,  at  $194.87  gross  per  capita,  1909 3,109,443.15 

*15,956.50,  at  $181.81  gross  per  capita,  1912 2,901,129.35 

Expenditures  Board  of  Administration,  1912 69,940.77 

Increase  in  bills  incurred  for  repairs,  improvements 

and  grounds,  1912  over  1909 185,073.90 

Gross  cost  of  maintaining  inmates  based  on  16,801.85, 

the  average  number  present  during  the  calendar 

year  1913: 

16,801.85,  at  $194.87  gross  per  capita,  1909 3,274,176.46 

*16,801.85,  at  $182.82  gross  per  capita,  1913 3,071,754.48 

Expenditures  of  Board  of  Administration,  1913 75,714.43 

Increase  in  bills  incurred  for  repairs,  improvements 

and  grounds,  1913  over  1909 144,663.24 

Net  reduction  four  years 418,450.33 


$12,534,960.07    $12,534,960.07 

A  comparison  of  prices  paid  by  the  Board  of  Administration  for  standard 
articles  like  flour,  sugar,  tea,  coffee,  butter,  etc.,  with  those  paid  by  the  separate 
boards  before  1910  is  difficult  because  of  the  advance  in  prices  and  because,  under 
the  present  system  of  purchasing  supplies  a  uniform  quality  is  specified  and 
generally  a  superior  quality  is  purchased.  As  has  been  said,  many  of  the  institu- 
tions formerly  purchased  an  inferior  grade  of  butterine,  whereas  the  Board  of 
Administration  specifies  that  butterine  furnished  shall  contain  at  least  20  per  cent 
of  pure  creamery  butter,  with  not  over  10  per  cent  moisture  and  3  per  cent  salt. 
It  will  be  seen  from  the  following  table,  prepared  by  the  fiscal  supervisor,  that  the 
prices  paid  in  1913  by  the  Kankakee  hospital  for  beef,  ham,  coffee,  tea,  potatoes 
and  butterine  were  perceptibly  higher  than  in  1909,  and  that  only  on  bacon,  flour 
and  sugar  has  there  been  a  reduction. 

*Dunning  excluded. 


30  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

AVERAGE    COST    OF    SUNDRY    FOOD    SUPPLIES    AT    THE    KANKAKEE    STATE 

HOSPITAL. 

Quarter  ending  Quarter  ending 

Dec.  31,  1909.  Dec.  31,  1913. 

Fresh  beef  carcass  ....................................  $  6.00 

Fore  quarters  ................  :  ................  '..  .  9.75 

Hindquarters  ..............................  .   .....  12.00 

Bacon    ..........................................  $17.76  16.72 

Ham  ............................................  12.93  15.45 

Flour  .........  >  .................................    4.98  3.79 

Coffee   ...........................................  13  .17& 

Tea  ..............................................  201/  .23^ 

Sugar  ...........................................     5.03  4.33 

Potatoes    ......................  ,  .............  ....       .43 

Butterine 


After  this  comparison  of  results  under  the  central  board  and 
separate  board  systems  in  Illinois,  we  may  now  return  to  the  general 
discussion  of  the  merits  and  demerits  of  the  two  systems. 

3.  Finally,  it  is  claimed  that  the  single  board  system  conduces  to 
greater  efficiency  in  the  administration  of  the  institutions,  as  a  result  of 
the  centralization  of  power  and  responsibility.  The  doings  of  a  single 
board  may  be  more  easily  followed,  as  public  opinion  is  focused  upon  its 
policies,  than  is  possible  where  there  are  twenty  or  more  boards.  Unlike 
the  separate  boards  which  formerly  controlled  the  charitable  institutions 
and  which  now  control  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions,  the  Board 
of  Administration  gives  its  whole  time  to  the  affairs  of  the  institutions 
under  its  jurisdiction;  it  is  permanently  in  session  and,  through  an  exten- 
sive system  of  reports  required  of  the  institutions  (daily  in  respect  to 
certain  matters),  it  is  enabled  to  keep  in  close  touch  with  what  is  happen- 
ing in  them  and  with  the  manner  in  which  they  are  managed  by  the  head 
officials.  It  is,  therefore,  able  to  compare  results  of  each  with  those  of  the 
others  and  to  enforce  upon  all  the  highest  standard  attained  in  any  one. 
By  reason  of  its  close  touch  with  all  the  institutions,  it  is  in  a  position  to 
recommend  legislation  for  improving  the  conditions  of  all  and  for  meeting 
their  needs  upon  the  basis  of  equal  and  uniform  treatment.  Being  always 
in  existence,  such  a  board  can  develop  systematic  business  methods  and 
will  acquire  a  familiarity  with  its  duties  such  as  local  boards  which  meet 
only  'occasionally  for  the  perfunctory  performance  of  their  duties  and 
which,  therefore,  have  no  permanent  organization,  can  never  attain. 

By  relieving  the  managing  heads  of  the  institutions  from  a  mass  of 
business  and  financial  details,  which  consume  their  time  and  for  which 
they  are  often  unfitted,  they  are  left  free  to  devote  their  time  to  affairs 
which  relate  more  immediately  to  the  care  and  welfare  of  the  inmates.  The 
separate  board  system  in  effect  requires  them  to  be  not  only  experts  in 
charity  administration,  penology  and  the  care  of  the  insane,  but  business 
and  financial  managers  as  well  —  a  very  difficult  combination  and  one  which 
is  probably  not  often  found. 

It  is  the  testimony  of  the  Board  of  Administration  that  there  has  been 
a  marked  increase  in  the  efficiency  of  the  institutions  since  the  institution 
of  central  control  in  the  place  of  local  management.  (See  its  report  in 
1910,  ch.  2.)  Governor  Deneen  declared,  in  his  message  of  January  8, 
1913,  that  "the  general  result  has  been  a  great  increase  of  efficiency,  accom- 
panied by  greater  economy  and  uniformity  of  service,  placing  all  institu- 
tions upon  a  level  with  the  best  similar  institutions  in  this  country  or  in 
Europe." 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  31 

Criticism  of  the  Central  Board  System. 

Some  objections  have  been  urged  against  the  system  of  adminis- 
tering a  large  number  of  institution  by  a  single  central  board,  even 
though  they  are  similar  in  character  and  logically  fall  within  the  same 
category. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  sometimes  claimed  that  such  a  board  tends 
to  emphasize  the  business  side  of  the  administration  to  the  neglect  of 
interests  of  the  inmates  of  the  institutions.     It  is  apt  to  attach  greater 
importance  to  considerations  of  economy  and  to  purely  adminisrative  effi- 
ciency than  to  those  affecting  the  immediate  welfare  of  the  persons  for 
tvhose  care  the  institutions  have  been  created.    It  is  a  common  complaint 
among  specialists  and  experts  in  the  field  of  charitable  and  penological 
administration  that  the  members  of  administrative  boards  take  little  inter- 
est in  the  activities  of  organizations  and  movements  for  the  advancement 
of  the  penological  and  philanthropic  sciences.    They  are,  therefore,  non- 
progressive  and  little  affected  by  the  progress  of  enlightened  sentiment 
concerning  the  best  methods  of  dealing  with  the  difficult  problems  of 
charity  and  penal  administration. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  sometimes  claimed  that  the  single  board 
system  tends  to  develop  expensive  machinery  and  to  become  both  autocra- 
tic in  its  powers  and  bureaucratic  in  its  methods. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  it  is  contended  by  some  that  each  institution, 
however  much  it  may  resemble  others  in  its  character  and  purpose,  has 
its  own  peculiar  problems  and  needs  and  its  own  individuality,  and  can, 
therefore,  be  more  wisely  managed  by  a  local  board  than  is  possible  where 
it  is  thrown  into  a  class  with  perhaps  a  score  of  other  institutions  and 
governed  by  a  central  body  which  has  no  respect  for  local  peculiarities 
and  conditions.    Conditions  in  the  various  institutions,  it  is  said,  are  often 
widely  different  and  do  not  lend  themselves  to  the  same  treatment.  Where 
there  is  a  large  number  of  institutions  widely  scattered  throughout  the 
state  it  is  difficult   for  a  single  board   sitting  at  the   center  to   become 
familiar  with  the  problems  and  conditions  of  them  all. 

4.  Finally,   it  is  contended   that  the   local   board   system   affords   a 
means  of  enlisting  the  services  of  a  large  number  of  competent  and  public- 
spirited  citizens  who  are  not  politicians  by  trade  and  whose  interest  in  the 
welfare  of  the  unfortunate  classes  committed  to  their  care  is  a  sufficient 
guarantee  that  they  will  devote  their  best  efforts  to  the  performance  of 
the  responsible  duties  of  their  offices.     Where  the  central  board  system 
prevails,  membership  on  the  board  tends  to  become  a  political  prize  and 
appointments  are  more  apt  to  be  given  as  rewards  for  political  service 
than  is  the  case  where  appointments  to  membership  on  local  boards  carry 
a  small  salary,  if  any  at  all.     It  is,  therefore,  said  to  be  better  to  have  a 
separate  unpaid  or  nominally  paid  board  for  each  institution  (with  possible 
provision   for  joint  purchase  of  supplies),   and  over  them  all  a  central 
board   of   charities   or   similar   authority,   with    the   power   of   visitation, 
inspection  and  recommendation. 


32  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 


II.    CHARITABLE  AND  PENAL  ADMINISTRATION  IN 
OTHER  STATES  AND  COUNTRIES. 

A.      IN  OTHER  STATES. 

1.    Central  Boards  of  Control. 

In  the  majority  of  states  the  charitable  and  penal  institutions  are 
under  the  management  and  control  of  separate  boards,  one  for  each 
institution.  There  is,  however,  a  marked  tendency  toward  the  abolition 
oi  local  boards  and  the  substitution  of  a  single  central  board  for  the 
control  of  all  the  institutions,  or  for  the  control  of  those  of  each  class. 
This  movement  began  about  forty  years  ago,  although  it  was  not  until 
recently  that  its  progress  became  marked.  The  indications  now  are 
that  this  movement  will  continue  and  that  the  central  board  system 
is  destined  to  become  the  general  method  of  institutional  administra- 
tion throughout  the  United  States. 

Kansas  (1873)  was  the  first  state  to  vest  the  management  of  its 
several  state  charitable  institutions  in  the  hands  of  a  central  board; 
and  recently  it  has  adopted  the  same  system  for  the  management  of 
its  penal  institutions.  New  York,  as  early  as  1877,  consolidated  the 
management  of  the  state  prisons  and  the  hospitals  for  the  insane  crim- 
inals in  a  single  authority — the  state  superintendent  of  prisons — in  1889 
partial  control  of  the  other  insane  hospitals  was  entrusted  to  a  com- 
mission in  lunacy,  and  in  1902  this  control  was  made  more  complete. 
In  the  latter  year  the  office  of  fiscal  supervisor  was  also  created,  and 
given  an  extensive  control  over  the  financial  and  business  affairs  of  the 
charitable  institutions.  Wisconsin,  in  1881,  created  a  single  central 
board  of  control  for  the  management  of  its  charitable  and  penal  insti- 
tutions. Arizona  followed  its  example  in  1895,  Iowa  in  1898,  Wash- 
ington in  1900,  Minnesota  in  1901,  West  Virginia  in  1909,  Ohio  and 
North  Dakota  in  1911,  Rhode  Island  in  1912,  and' Nebraska  and  New 
Hampshire  in  1913.  Arkansas  and  Kentucky,  in  1905,  each  created 
a  single  board  for  the  control  of  its  charitable  institutions,  and  Illinois 
did  likewise  in  1909.  In  1911,  California  created  a  central  board  with 
powers  of  inspection,  supervision  and  a  limited  control  over  all  the 
charitable,  penal  and  other  institutions  of  the  state.  In  1913,  Vermont 
passed  a  law  providing  for  the  centralization  in  a  single  authority  of 
the  purchase  of  supplies  for  the  various  institutions  of  the  state.  Plans 
for  a  more  centralized  system  of  administration  of  charitable  and 
correctional  institutions  have  also  been  proposed  in  Massachusetts  and 
New  York. 

The  various  types  of  central  control  may  be  classified  as  follows : 
First,  that  under  which  all  (or  nearly  all)  the  state  charitable  institu- 
tions are  subject  to  the  full  management  and  control  of  a  single  board, 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  33 

while  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  are  under  the  management 
of  a  separate  and  distinct  board.  Second,  that  under  which  the  man- 
agement of  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions,  but  not  the  char- 
itable institutions,  is  vested  in  a  single  central  board.  Third,  that  under 
which  only  the  financial  operations  (such  as  the  letting  of  contracts, 
the  purchase  of  supplies,  etc.)  of  the  charitable  and  penal  institutions 
are  managed  and  controlled  by  a  central  authority.  Fourth,  a  mixed 
system  under  which  certain  classes  of  institutions  are  subject  to  the 
control  of  a  central  board,  while  others  are  managed  by  separate  boards 
or  which  are  subject  to  the  control  of  a  single  central  authority  only 
in  respect  to  certain  matters.  Fifth,  finally,  there  is  the  system  under 
which  the  management  and  control  of  all  the  charitable,  penal  and 
reformatory  institutions  (and  in  some  states  even  the  higher  educa- 
tional institutions,  for  certain  purposes)  is  vested  in  a  single  central 
board,  there  being  no  separate  board  of  managers  for  any  institution. 

The  states  falling  in  the  first  group,  that  is,  those  in  which  the  char- 
itable institutions  (or  certain  of  them)  are  under  the  management  and 
control  of  a  single  state  board,  the  penal  institutions  being  placed  under 
the  control  of  another  central  board  and  under  local  boards  are  Ala- 
bama, Arkansas,  Kentucky,  Kansas  and  Virginia.  This  is  also  the 
class  to  which  Illinois  belongs. 

In  Alabama  the  hospitals  for  the  insane  are  under  the  management 
of  a  single  board;  but  the  other  charitable  institutions  and  also  the 
penitentiary  are  each  under  the  management  of  separate  boards. 

In  Arkansas  the  schools  for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  dumb, 
together  with  the  asylum  for  the  insane,  were  all  placed  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a  single  board  of  trustees  in  1905,  and  in 
1911  the  Confederate  Soldiers'  Home  was  added  to  the  list.  The 
board  consists  of  seven  members,  each  of  whom  receives  compensa- 
tion at  the  rate  of  $5  per  day,  plus  traveling  expenses. 

In  Kentucky  the  three  insane  asylums  and  the  asylum  for  the 
feeble-minded  are  under  the  management  of  a  board  entitled  the  board 
of  control  for  the  charitable  institutions  (created  by  an  Act  of  1908). 
The  board  consists  of  four  members,  appointed  by  the  governor  for 
a  term  of  four  years.  Two  members  must  be  taken  from  the  majority 
political  party  in  the  state.  The  salary  of  each  member  is  $2,500  per 
year,  plus  an  allowance  for  their  traveling  expenses.  The  board  has 
"full  and  complete  management  and  control"  of  the  several  institutions 
mentioned. 

In  Kansas  all  the  state  charitable  institutions,  including  the  hos- 
pitals, schools  for  the  deaf,  the  blind  and  the  feeble-minded,  the 
orphans'  homes,  etc.,  are  under  the  "management,  government  and 
control"  of  a  central  board  created  in  1905,  and  consisting  of  three 
members  appointed  by  the  governor  for  a  term  of  four  years.  Each 
member  receives  a  salary  of  $2,500  per  year.  At  present  there  are 
seven  (7)  institutions  under  the  control  of  the  board,  and  two  others 
will  soon  be  completed.  The  total  number  of  inmates  in  the  institutions 
is  about  5,000.  The  board  has  also  the  power  of  visitation,  inspection 
and  supervision  over  private  asylums,  children's  aid  societies  and  all 


34  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

charitable  and  all  semi-charitable  institutions  receiving  state  aid.  The 
penal  and  reformatory  institutions  were  excluded  from  the  control  of 
the  board,  and  were  left  under  the  management  of  separate  boards 
until  1913,  when  the  Legislature  placed  them  under  the  management  of 
the  state  board  of  corrections.  At  the  same  time  the  industrial  schools 
for  boys  and  girls,  which  had  formerly  been  under  the  board  of  control, 
were  placed  with  the  penitentiaries  under  the  state  board  of  corrections. 
No  institution  of  Kansas  at  the  present  time  is  under  the  management 
of  a  separate  board. 

In  Virginia  each  of  the  hospitals  for  the  insane  is  under  the  man- 
agement of  a  separate  board ;  but  the  several  boards  together  constitute 
a  central  board  of  control  for  the  appointment  of  superintendents,  the 
oversight  of  expenditures  and  certain  other  matters  for  all  the  hospitals. 

The  states  belonging  to  the  second  group — those  in  which  the 
penal  institutions  are  put  in  a  separate  class  from  the  charitable  insti- 
tutions and  are  under  the  management  of  a  single  central  board,  are 
California,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Tennessee  and  Texas.  In  each  of  these 
states  there  is  a  board  of  prison  commissioners  which  is  charged  with 
the  management  of  the  several  state  prisons  and  reformatories. 

In  1911  the  legislature  of  California  created  a  state  board  of 
control,  with  power  to  examine  the  books  of  the  state  prisons,  reforma- 
tories, state  hospitals  and  other  institutions,  commissions,  bureaus  and 
offices.  It  is  required  to  visit  at  least  once  each  year  every  public 
institution  maintained  wholly  or  in  part  by  the  state,  and  to  ascertain 
the  conditions  prevailing  therein  and  its  needs ;  to  visit  public  buildings 
in  course  of  constructon  and  to  ascertain  whether  the  provisions  of 
the  law  and  the  contracts  relating  thereto  are  being  complied  with ; 
to  exercise  equal  supervision  over  all  the  state  institutions  in  respect 
to  their  financial  and  business  policies ;  to  institute  court  proceedings 
to  conserve  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  state ;  all  contracts  entered 
into  by  state  officers,  boards  and  commissions  must  be  submitted  for 
its  approval ;  reports  of  all  supplies  purchased  by  the  state  or  any 
institution  thereof  must  be  made  to  it;  no  supplies  may  be  purchased 
in  the  open  market  without  its  approval;  it  performs  the  duties  of  a 
court  of  claims  and  its  approval  is  necessary  before  any  claim  against 
the  state  may  be  paid ;  it  is  charged  with  investing  school  funds ;  bond 
sales  by  cities,  counties  and  other  local  authorities  must  be  notified  to 
it ;  it  is  empowered  to  sell  or  exchange  property  belonging  to  the  state ; 
it  is  required  to  establish  a  system  of  uniform  accounting  and  of 
keeping  records  in  all  institutions  and  offices;  and  it  performs  all 
duties  formerly  exercised  by  the  various  state  boards  of  examiners. 
With  all  its  varied  powers  it  is  not,  however,  a  board  of  control  in  the 
sense  that  it  is  charged  with  the  actual  management  of  the  institutions  ; 
it  is  rather  an  inspectional  and  supervisory  authority.  The  board 
consists  of  three  members  appointed  by  the  governor  and  they  are 
required  to  give  all  their  time  to  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  Each 
member  receives  a  salary  of  $4,000  per  year. 

In  the  Third  Group  belongs  Rhode  Island,  which  has  a  board  of 
control  and  supply  composed  of  five  (5)  persons,  appointed  for  a  term 
of  five  years  (salary  $3,000  per  year  for  the  chairman  and  secretary, 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  35 

$2,000  for  the  other  members)  with  control  over  purchases  and  sup- 
plies. It  makes  all  contracts  for  the  state  charitable  and  penal  insti- 
tutions ;  it  oversees  the  construction  and  equipment  of  buildings,  and  is 
charged  with  establishing  a  uniform  system  of  accounting  among  the 
various  institutions  subject  to  its  control.  In  1914  the  Governor  recom- 
mended that  the  entire  administrative  and  financial  management  of  the 
institutions  be  placed  under  the  board.  In  this  group  might  also  be 
placed  the  state  of  Vermont,  which  in  1913  created  the  office  of  pur- 
chasing agent  for  the  various  institutions  (except  for  the  soldiers' 
home). 

In  the  Fourth  Group  are  New  York  and  Massachusetts,  where 
there  is  a  combination  of  the  local  and  central  board  systems.  The 
institutions  of  New  York  are  divided  into  three  classes :  First,  the 
charitable  institutions ;  second,  the  hospitals  for  the  insane ;  and  third, 
the  state  prisons. 

1.  In  New  York  each  of  the  nineteen  charitable  institutions  is  in 
charge  of  a  board  of  local  managers  appointed  by  the  governor,  and 
there  is  a  state  board  of  charities  with  powers  of  visitation  and  super- 
vision over  the  several  charitable  institutions  (now  twenty- four  in  num- 
ber) and  with  power  to  inspect,  supervise  and  license  certain  private 
institutions.    The  board  is  composed  of  twelve  members,  appointed  by 
the  governor,  and  they  receive  a  salary  of  ten  dollars  a  day  for  attend- 
ance at  the  meetings,  provided  that  the  total  allowance  for  each  member 
shall  not  exceed  five  hundred  dollars  ($500.00)  per  year.    The  financial 
and  business  affairs  of  the  charitable  institutions,  including  the  approval 
of  estimates  for  supplies,  are  in  the  hands  of  an  officer  called  the 
Fiscal  Supervisor.    He  is  appointed  by  the  governor  for  a  term  of  five 
years  and  receives  a  salary  of  six  thousand  dollars  a  year. 

2.  Each  of  the  state  hospitals  for  the  insane  (with  fourteen  in 
number,  6,000  employees  and  over  32,000  patients)  is  under  the  control 
of  a  board  of  managers  appointed  by.  the  governor,  but  there  is  also 
a  commission  in  lunacy,  which  has  power  to  appoint  and  discharge 
superintendents  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  local  boards  of  managers. 
The  two  hospitals  for  the  criminal  insane  are  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  superintendent  of  state  prisons.    The  commission  also  visits  and 
inspects  the  insane  hopital,  formulates  policies  regarding  their  manage- 
ment, and  controls  their  business  and  financial  operations. 

3.  The  state  prisons  and  the  two  state  hospitals  for  insane  crim- 
inals, including  the  state  farm  for  women — eight  institutions  altogether, 
with  a  total  population  of  about  6,000,  are  under  the  control  of  a  state 
superintendent  of  prisons,   who  has  power  to   appoint  and   remove 
wardens  and  has  control  of  the  financial  and  business  operations  of 
the  several  institutions  under  his  jurisdiction.     The  reformatories  are 
under  separate  boards  of  managers. 

There  is  also  a  commission  of  prisons  of  seven  members,  with 
powers  of  inspection  and  advice ;  a  board  of  parole  of  three  members, 
two  of  whom  are  appointed  by  the  governor,  and  the  commission  on 
new  prisons,  consisting  of  five  members. 

Finally,  there  is  a  board  of  classification,  consisting  of  the  fiscal 
supervisor  of  state  charities,  the  state  commission  of  prisons,  the  state 


36  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

superintendent  of  prisons,  and  the  lunacy  commission — in  all,  twelve 
members. 

This  New  York  system  has  been  criticized  for  its  cumbersomeness 
and  expensiveness.  The  machinery  of  administration  seems  needlessly 
complicated,  and  those  who  have  studied  its  workings  are  of  the 
opinion  that  it  does  not  work  smoothly  and  expeditiously. 

A  committee  of  inquiry  appointed  by  Governor  Sulzer  in  1913 
recommended  that  all  of  the  boards  and  offices  having  to  do  with  penal 
institutions  be  abolished  except  the  state  superintendent  of  prisons 
and  the  commission  of  prisons,  the  latter,  however,  to  consist  of  three 
members  instead  of  seven  and  to  be  given  all  the  powers  now  exercised 
by  the  bodies  proposed  to  be  abolished.  This  committee  also  urged 
that  the  state  charitable  institutions  ought,  in  some  way,  to  be  con- 
solidated. 

The  Massachusetts  system  is  also  mixed  and  complicated. 

1.  There  is  a  local  board  of  managers  for  each  institution. 

2.  There  is  a  state  board  of  insanity  having  supervisory,  visitorial 
and  directorial  power  aver  the  institutions  for  the  insane. 

3.  There  is  a  state  board  of  charities  with  essentially  the  same 
powers  over  the  charitable  institutions. 

4.  There  is  a  board  of  prison  commissioners  with  complete  control 
over  me  four  reformatories  and  state  prisons,  but  not  the  state  farm, 
except  as  to  its  industries,  and  general  supervision  and  inspection  of 
jails  and  houses  of  correction.    The  board  consists  of  five  members, 
two  of  whom  must  be  women.    They  are  appointed  by  the  governor  for 
for  a  term  of  five, years.    The  chairman  receives  a  salary  of  $4,000  per 
year  in  addition  to  traveling  expenses.     The  other  members  receive 
only  their  necessary  expenses.     The  number  of  inmates  of  the  state 
prisons,  reformatories  and  prison  hospitals  is  about  3,000  and  the 
county  jails  and  houses  of  correction  contain  about  the  same  number. 

The  Massachusetts  Economy  and  Efficiency  Commission  in  1914 
recommended  a  radical  reorganization  of  the  machinery  of  control  for 
the  charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions.  It  proposed  two 
alternative  schemes  for  the  consideration  of  the  legislature  and  accom- 
panied its  proposals  with  drafts  of  bills  for  carrying  out  its  recom- 
mendations. The  first  of  the  two  plans  proposed  to  vest  in  a  single 
board  of  five  commissioners,  paid  $1,000  a  year  each,  general  super- 
vision and  direction  of  all  the  state  hospitals,  asylums,  colonies,  sana- 
toria, industrial  schools  for  delinquent  boys  and  girls,  the  school  for 
the  feeble-minded,  the  state  prisons  and  reformatories,  and  the  state 
farm — altogether  twenty-nine  institutions,  with  a  population  of  over 
20,000  inmates.  This  commission  should  be  charged  with  the  promo- 
tion of  general  policies  and  plans  in  regard  to  the  management  of  the 
institutions  and  with  the  general  oversight  of  their  administration. 
The  proposed  plan  contemplates  that  the  active  administration  of  the 
institutions  shall  be  vested  in  a  director  appointed  for  an  indefinite 
term  by  the  commission,  to  whom  he  is  to  be  held  responsible.  He  is  to 
have  authority  to  appoint  executive  secretaries  (one  for  each  of  the 
three  groups  of  institutions),  superintendents  and  other  subordinate 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  37 

• 

officers,  to  see  that  all  inmates  are  properly  cared  for,  to  organize  a 
central  purchasing  agency  for  all  the  institutions,  to  install  a  uniform 
system  of  accounting,  etc.  Provision  is  also  to  be  made  for  the 
appointment  of  a  business  agent,  one  of  whose  duties  is  to  purchase 
supplies  for  the  institution,  and  for  an  unpaid  board  of  three  visitors 
for  each  institution. 

The  second  plan  proposed  by  the  Economy  and  Efficiency  Com- 
mission vests  the  supervision  and  administration  of  the  institutions  in 
a  board  of  five  commissioners,  to  be  chosen  with  particular  reference 
to  the  nature  of  the  several  problems  involved,  the  members  of  the 
board  to  give  all  their  time  to  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  their  offices. 

The  first  of  the  proposed  plans  is  preferred  by  the  Economy  and 
Efficiency  Commission  as  the  one  which  best  provides  the  means  for 
determining  the  responsibility  necessary  for  the  successful  administra- 
tion of  the  institutions,  although  it  admitted  that  each  plan  has  certain 
advantages  over  the  other.  Of  one  thing  the  commission  was  con- 
vinced, namely,  that  under  the  present  system  of  divided  authority  (the 
total  number  of  trustees  and  commissioners  who  are  concerned  with 
the  administration  of  the  institutions  is  136)  economy  and  efficiency  in 
the  management  of  the  institutions  is  impossible  and  that  the  remedy 
lies  in  the  abolition  of  a  large  number  of  the  existing  separate  boards 
and  commissions  and  the  substitution  of  a  central  authority  having  full 
power  and  responsibility. 

The  commission  found  that  there  appeared  to  be  no  standard  in 
the  various  institutions  for  determining  the  number  of  employees  to 
do  the  work  required,  the  amount  of  the  salaries  paid  and  the  official 
titles  which  they  bore.  In  one  hospital  there  was  one  employee  to  3.38 
patients ;  in  another,  one  to  5.75  patients,  while  in  the  asylums  the  ratio 
ranged  from  1  to  4.20  to  1  to  5.45.  Salaries  of  superintendents  ranged 
from  $2,500  to  $5,000  per  year  among  the  different  institutions,  and  so 
with  the  salaries  of  subordinate  officers  and  employees.  In  regard  to 
financial  methods,  including  the  purchase  of  supplies,  the  commission 
found  the  same  lack  of  uniformity  and  want  of  system;  and  it  ex- 
pressed its  conviction  that  under  the  present  method  it  was  impossible 
to  control  the  affairs  of  the  institutions  from  the  accounting  standpoint 
so  that  an  accurate  record  could  be  presented  of  the  actual  expenditures 
for  any  particular  purpose.  One  of  the  most  important  advantages  to 
be  derived  from  the  proposed  reorganization,  said  the  Commission, 
might  come  through  the  installation  of  uniform  and  proper  accounting 
methods,  so  that  the  state  might  have  an  accurate  record  of  its  per- 
manent investment,  a  better  knowledge  of  its  maintenance  and  cost,  a 
more  efficient  management  of  its  purchases  through  a  central  agent  and 
a  more  business  like  handling  of  -  finances  by  the  state  treasurer's 
department. 

In  the  fifth  group,  that  is  to  say  the  group  of  states  in  which  all 
the  charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  are  under  the  control 
and  management  of  a  single  central  board  are  to  be  found  the  states  of 
Arizona,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  New  Hampshire,  North  Dakota,  Ohio, 
South  Dakota,  Washington,  West  Virginia,  Wisconsin  and  Wyoming. 
If  to  these  we  add  those  states  in  which  the  penal  institutions,  though 
not  under  the  management  of  the  same  authority  as  the  charitable 


38  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

• 

institutions,  yet  are  under  the  control  of  a  single  board  of  superin- 
tendence (California,  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Massachusetts,  New  York, 
Rhode  Island  and  Tennessee),  we  have  eighteen  states  at  the  present 
time  in  which  the  penal  institutions  (where  there  are  more  than  one 
in  a  single  state)  are  under  centralized  control. 

In  Arizona  all  the  charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions 
are  under  the  management  and  control  of  a  board  consisting  of  the 
governor,  the  auditor  and  one  citizen  appointed  by  the  governor  for  a 
term  of  two  years. 

In  Iowa  all  the  state  hospitals,  prisons,  reformatories,  soldiers' 
homes,  schools  for  the  deaf,  industrial  schools  for  boys  and  girls,  etc. 
— fifteen  altogether,  with  a  total  population  of  about  9,000  inmates- 
are  under  the  management,  government  and  control  of  a  bi-partisan 
boapd  of  three  persons  appointed  by  the  governor,  with  the  consent  of 
two-thirds  of  the  senate,  for  a  term  of  six  years  (salary  $3,000  a  year). 
This  board  has  also  power  to  investigate  the  state  university,  the 
normal  school  and  the  college  of  agriculture,  and  the  power  to  inspect 
and  regulate  county  and  private  institutions  in  which  the  insane  are 
kept  and  homes  for  friendless  children.  In  general,  it  has  the  same 
powers  over  all  the  charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  that 
the  Illinois  Board  of  Administration  has  over  the  charitable  institutions. 

Minnesota,  since  1901,  has  had  a  state  board  of  control  consisting 
of  three  persons  appointed  by  the  governor  for  a  term  of  six  years 
(salary  $3,500  each),  charged  with  the  management  of  all  the  char- 
itable, penal  and  reformatory  institutions,  including  training  schools, 
the  industrial  school  for  girls  and  the  tuberculosis  sanitarium — sixteen 
altogether,  with  a  total -population  of  about  6,500  inmates.  It  also  has 
a  certain  authority  over  the  educational  institutions  in  respect  to  the 
erection  of  new  buildings,  the  purchase  of  fuel  and  the  placing  of  insur- 
ance. The  board  has  charge  of  the  financial  and  business  affairs  of 
all  the  charitable  and  penal  institutions,  selects  superintendents,  fixes 
the  salaries  of  employees,  prescribes  the  system  of  accounting  and 
investigates  local  prisons,  jails,  hospitals  and  asylums.  The  members 
of  the  board  are  required  to  give  their  whole  time  to  the  discharge  of 
their  official  duties.  At  the  time  this  central  board  of  control  was 
created  the  state  board  of  charities  was  abolished,  but  the  need  for 
some  inspectional  machinery,  independent  of  the  board  whose  work  is 
to  be  inspected,  led  shortly  afterwards  (1907)  to  the  creation  of  a 
state  board  of  visitors,  which  is  little  more  than  the  old  board  of  char- 
ities under  a  different  name.  The  board  is  bi-partisan  in  composition 
and  is  composed  of  six  persons  appointed  by  the  governor  for  a  term 
of  six  years.  Its  members  receive  no  compensation  other  than  traveling 
expenses.  It  is  charged  with  the  visitation  and  investigation  of  all 
charitable  and  correctional  institutions. 

In  New  Hampshire  there  is  a  board  of  control  (created  in  1913) 
consisting  of  the  governor,  the  secretary  of  the  state  board  of  charities, 
the  purchasing  agent,  and  two  other  persons  appointed  by  the  governor. 
The  purchasing  agent  is  appointed  by  the  governor  and  receives  a 
salary  of  $3,000  per  annum.  He  has  power  to  make  contracts  and  to 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  39 

purchase  all  supplies  for  the  eleemosynary  institutions  and  for  the 
various  departments  of  the  state  government.  The  board  of  control 
acts  with  him  in  the  matter  of  constructing  and  repairing  buildings. 

In  North  Dakota  there  is  a  board  of  control  of  state  institutions 
(created  in  1911)  with  "full  power  to  manage,  control  and  govern" 
the  state  hospitals  for  the  insane,  the  state  penitentiary,  the  asylums 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  dumb  and  the  feeble-minded,  the  state 
reform  school  and  such  other  charitable  and  penal  institutions  as  may 
be  created  in  the  future.  The  board  is  vested  with  all  powers  formerly 
exercised  by  the  separate  board  of  trustees  which  were  abolished  by 
the  Act  of  1911.  It  is  required  to  inspect  at  least  once  every  six 
months  all  institutions  subject  to  its  jurisdiction  and  to  visit  the  hos- 
pitals for  the  insane  once  each  month;  to  prescribe  a  uniform  system 
of  records  and  accounts  for  the  several  institutions  to  prepare  plans 
and  specifications  for  new  buildings  and  improvements ;  to  appoint 
superintendents,  wardens,  and  other  institution  officials  and  to  fix  their 
salaries ;  to  make  a  biennial  report  to  the  legislature  and  to  recommend 
the  enactment  of  such  legislation  as  in  its  judgment  is  necessary  or 
conducive  to  the  improvement  of  the  institutions.  The  board  consists 
of  three  members,  appointed  by  the  governor  for  a  term  of  two  years, 
not  more  than  two  of  whom  shall  be  taken  from  the  same  political 
party.  Each  member  receives  an  annual  salary  of  $3,000. 

In  Ohio,  all  the  charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions, 
nineteen  (19)  in  number,  with  an  aggregate  number  of  inmates  of 
over  20,000,  are  under  the  management  and  control  of  a  board  com- 
posed of  four  persons,  not  more  than  two  of  whom  shall  belong  to  the 
same  political  party.  They  are  appointed  by  the  governor,  with  the 
consent  of  the  senate,  for  a  term  of  four  years,  and  they  may  be 
removed  by  the  governor  for  cause  after  a  hearing.  They  receive  a 
salary  of  $5,000  per  year  and  necessary  traveling  expenses.  There  is 
also  a  secretary  who  receives  a  salary  of  $3,000  per  year,  and  a  fiscal 
supervisor  who  receives  a  salary  of  $4,000  per  year.  The  board  suc- 
ceeded to  all  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  several  boards  by  which  the 
institutions  were  formerly  managed.  It  appoints  the  superintendents 
or  other  chief  officers  of  the  several  institutions,  determines  the  num- 
ber and  salary  of  employees,  prescribes  methods  of  accounting,  pur- 
chases supplies  for  all  the  institutions  (it  is  required  to  purchase  by 
contract  from  the  lowest  bidder),  visits  and  inspects  the  institutions 
and  acts  as  a  board  of  parole  for  the  release  of  prisoners  from  the  peni- 
tentiary and  reformatory,  and  for  the  release  of  boys  and  girls  from  the 
industrial  schools.  The  managing  head  of  each  institution  is  required 
to  present  to  the  board  monthly  estimates  of  needed  supplies.  These 
are  reviewed  by  the  fiscal  supervisor,  who  then  lays  them  before  the 
board  for  its  approval.  The  state  treasurer  is  the  custodian  of  all 
funds  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  board,  except  that  each  institution 
is  allowed  to  keep  on  hand  a  small  contingent  fund. 

In  South  Dakota,  the  management  and  control  of  the  peniten- 
tiary, the  insane  hospital,  the  deaf  and  dumb  school  and  the  reform 
composed  of  five  members,  salary  $3.00  per  day,  the  total  not  to  exceed 


40  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

f 

$300.00  per  year.  The  board  is  required  to  visit  the  institutions  subject 
to  its  jurisdiction  and  it  has  charge  of  the  financial  management,  the 
purchase  of  supplies,  etc. 

Wisconsin,  since  1891,  has  had  a  board  of  control  for  the  char- 
itable, penal  and  reformatory  institutions — eleven  (11)  in  number, 
having  a  total  population  of  about  6,600  inmates — with  power  to  "main- 
tain, govern,  supervise  and  direct"  the  same.  It  is  composed  of  five 
persons  appointed  by  the  governor  (salary  $2,000  per  year  and  ex- 
penses) and  they  are  required  to  give  their  entire  time  to  their  official 
duties.  They  appoint  superintendents  and  managers,  purchase  supplies, 
visit  and  inspect  institutions  and  act  as  a  board  of  parole  and  probation. 
In  addition  to  their  control  over  the  regular  state  institutions,  they  are 
auhorized  to  "investigate  and  supervise"  all  charitable  and  correctional 
institutions  aided  in  any  way  by  the  state,  and  all  industrial  schools  and 
all  county  insane  asylums,  poor  houses,  jails,  city  prisons  and  houses 
of  correction.  They  make  annual  visits  to  every  county  jail,  quarterly 
visits  to  the  county  insane  asylums  and  semi-annual  visits  to  the  sol- 
diers' home.  They  grant  licenses  for  the  erection  of  county  asylums 
and  approve  plans  for  the  same,  as  well  as  for  jails,  poor  houses,  and 
houses  of  correction.  They  also  have,  the  power  to  audit  the  accounts 
of  county  insane  asylums. 

Washington,  since  1901,  has  had  a  state  board  of  control  of 
the  charitable  and  penal  institutions,  with  full  power  to  manage  and 
govern  the  same.  It  is  required  to  purchase  supplies  for  the  twelve 
institutions — nearly  4,000  inmates — under  its  control,  as  well  as  for  the 
five  (5)  state  quarries  and  the  state  capitol,  and  whenever  practicable 
to  purchase  the  same  by  contract.  The  board  consists  of.  three  per- 
sons, appointed  by  the  governor  for  a  term  of  six  years  (salary  $3,000 
per  year  and  expenses).  With  the  warden,  it  acts  as  a  prison  board  for 
twelve  (12)  in  number,  with  about  5,000  inmates,  are  under  the  "man- 
agement, direction,  control  and  government"  of  a  board  of  control 
school  are  in  the  hands  of  the  state  board  of  charities  and  corrections, 
terminating  sentences  and  releasing  prisoners  in  pursuance  of  the  inde- 
terminate sentence  law. 

In  West  Virginia  the  charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions, 
consisting  of  three  persons,  each  of  whom  receives  a  salary  of  $5,000 
per  year.  The  board  also  has  control  of  the  financial  and  business 
affairs  of  the  twelve  (12)  higher  educational  institutions  and  the  appro- 
priations made  for  various  boards,  commissions,  schools  and  associa- 
tions are  expended  at  the  discretion  and  upon  the  approval  of  the 
board.  The  purchase  of  supplies  for  all  the  institutions,  including  the 
educational  institutions,  is  made  by  the  board. 

In  Wyoming  the  charitable,  penal  and  reformatory  institutions, 
except  the  poor  farm,  are  under  the  management  of  a  board  consisting 
of  the  governor,  secretary  of  state,  the  state  treasurer,  the  auditor  and 
the  superintendent  of  education.  The  board  appoints  officers,  fixes 
salaries  and  makes  rules  regarding  the  purchase  of  supplies  and  the 
care  of  the  inmates. 

Michigan  is  the  only  state  that,  having  once  tried  the  central  board 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  41 

of  control  system,  abolished  it  and  returned  to  the  separate  board 
system.  In  1891  the  legislature  abolished  the  separate  boards  of  man- 
agers of  the  several  institutions  and  established  two  central  boards, 
one  for  the  management  of  the  prisons  and  the  reformatories,  the  other 
for  the  charitable  institutions.  In  1893  the  legislature  abolished  the 
two  central  boards  and  re-established  the  local  boards. 

Of  these  several  methods,  the  single  board  system  is,  of  course, 
the  simplest  and,  on  the  whole,  seems  to  be  the  one  best  adapted  for 
securing  economical  business  management  and  efficiency  generally.  But 
the  doings  of  a  board  with  such  large  powers  over  so  many  widely 
separated  institutions  should  be  subject  to  the  inspection  and  criticism 
of  an  independent  body  of  experts  or  disinterested  public-spirited 
citizens,  as  is  the  case  in  Illinois  and  Minnesota.  In  the  states  where 
this  system  is  in  force  there  is  general  satisfaction  with  the  results  and 
the  indications  are  that  it  will  be  introduced  into  other  states  in  the 
near  future. 

2.    State  Boards  of  Charities. 

In  several  of  the  states  whose  institutions  are  under  the  adminis- 
trative control  of  a  central  board,  there  is,  in  addition,  a  state  board 
of  charities,  a  state  board  of  charities  and  corrections,  or  a  state  char- 
ities commission  charged  with  the  duty  of  visiting  and  inspecting  the 
institutions  and  of  making  recommendations  for  their  improvement. 
This  is  true  of  Illinois,  Ohio  and  Minnesota;  and  it  is  also  true  of 
Massachusetts  (state  board  of  visitors)  and  New  York,  where  there 
is  a  mixed  system  of  central  and  local  control.  Likewise  in  a  majority 
of  the  other  states  (that  is  to  say,  those  which  do  not  have  a  central 
board  of  administrative  control,  the  charitable  and  sometimes  the  cor- 
rectional institutions  are  subject  to  the  supervision  and  inspection  of 
a  state  board  of  charities  or  similar  body  with  a  different  name.  The 
members  of  these  boards  are  generally  unpaid  and  they  give  only  a 
small  portion  of  their  time  to  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  They  have 
few  or  no  powers  of  administrative  control  over  the  institutions,  their 
functions  being  mainly  visitorial  and  advisory  ;  in  short,  they  are  super- 
visory bodies  and  not  boards  of  control.  The  following  states,  In 
addition  to  those  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  now  have  such 
boards :  California  (a  paid  board  which  has  supervisory  power  and 
a  limited  power  of  control),  Colorado,  Connecticut,  Indiana,  Louisiana, 
Maryland,  Michigan,  Missouri,  Montana,  Nebraska,  North  Carolina, 
Pennsylvania,  Rhode  Island,  Tennessee,  and  Virginia.  The  District  of 
Columbia  also  has  a  board  of  charities  with  similar  powers.  In  the 
following  states  there  is  no  state  board  of  charities  or  state  board  of 
control :  •  Alabama,  Delaware,  Florida,  Georgia,  Idaho,  Maine,  Mis- 
sissippi, Nevada,  New  Mexico,  Oregon,  South  Carolina,  Texas,  Utah 
and  Vermont  (except  for  the  insane).  In  Oklahoma  there  is  a  com- 
missioner of  charities  and  corrections,  and  in  New  Jersey  a  commis- 
sioner of  charities,  who  have  the  power  to  visit  and  inspect  all  state 
charitable  and  penal  institutions  and  all  other  institutions  that  receive 
state  aid.  In  addition  to  this  power,  the  Oklahoma  commissioner  is 
authorized  to  inspect  private  hospitals,  homes,  orphanages,  etc.,  and 
also  county  municipal  institutions. 


42  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

3.    Boards  of  Pardon  or  Parole. 

State  boards  of  pardon  are  now  found  in  about  two-thirds  of  the 
states.  From  the  point  of  view  of  their  constitution,  they,  may  be 
grouped  into  three  classes : 

1.  Ex  officio  boards,  that  is,  boards  composed  wholly  of  members 
who  are  at  the  same  time  state  offi<  ers. 

2.  Non  ex  officio  boards,  that  is  to  say,  boards  composed  of  mem- 
bers who  do  not  hold  other  state  off  <:es. 

3.  Mixed  boards,  or  those  composed  partly  of  ex  officio  members 
and  partly  of  members  appointed  from  private  life. 

In  the  first  group  are  to  be  found  the  pardon  boards  of  Alabama, 
California,  Georgia,  Massachusetts,  Maine,  Minnesota,  Montana, 
Nevada,  Oklahoma,  Pennsylvania  and  Wyoming.  In  Tennessee  the 
governor  is  authorized  to  refer  to  the  prison  commissioners  for  inves- 
tigation and  report  applications  for  pardon ;  and  in  Vermont  the  gov- 
ernor may  request  not  more  than  three  judges  of  the  supreme  court 
to  sit  with  him  and  to  advise  him  in  the  exercise  of  his  pardoning 
power. 

Pardon  boards  in  this  group  are  usually  composed  of  three  or 
more  state  officers,  among  whom  the  attorney  general  and  secretary 
of  state  are  nearly  always  included.  Occasionally,  however,  the  auditor, 
the  lieutenant  governor,  and  in  one  state  (Oklahoma)  the  superin- 
tendent of  public  instruction  and  the  president  of  the  state  board  of 
agriculture  are  members.  Not  infrequently  the  chief  justice  of  the 
supreme  court  is  a  member,  and  occasionally  all  the  supreme  court 
judges  are  added.  In  Georgia  the  prison  commission  serves  as  a  board 
of  pardons ;  and  in  California  the  board  of  prison  directors  are  required 
to  report  to  the  governor  the  names  of  all  prisoners  who,  in  their 
judgment,  ought  to  be  pardoned.  In  Wyoming  the  state  board  of  chari- 
ties serves  as  a  board  of  pardons.  In  Maine  and  Massachusetts  the 
executive  council  advises  the  governor  in  respect  to  the  granting  of 
pardons.  In  Missouri  there  is  a  pardon  attorney  who  examines  appli- 
cations for  pardons  and  makes  reports  to  the  governor.  In  the  United 
Slates  government,  applications  for  pardon  are  examined  and  reported 
en  by  a  pardon  attorney  in  the  Department  of  Justice. 

The  states  which  have  "mixed"  boards  are  Colorado,  Connecticut 
and  North  Dakota.  In  Colorado  the  board  is  composed  of  the  governor 
and  three  persons  appointed  by  him ;  in  Connecticut  it  is  composed  of 
the  governor,  one  judge  of  the  supreme  court,  and  four  other  persons 
appointed  by  him ;  in  North  Dakota,  of  the  attorney  general,  the  chief 
justice  and  two  other  persons  appointed  by  the  governor. 

The  states  which  have  pardon  boards  composed  wholly  of  non  ex 
offkio  members  are :  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Michigan,  Ohio,  South 
Carolina  and  Texas.  The  Illinois  board  is  composed  of  three  mem- 
bers, each  of  whom  receives  a  salary  of  $3,500  a  year.  The  Indiana 
board  is  composed  of  three  members,  each  of  whom  receives  a  salary 
of  $300  per  year  and  in  addition  an  allowance  for  traveling  expenses. 
The  Kansas  board  is  composed  of  three  members  with  salaries  of  $5 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  43 

per  day  and  their  expenses ;  that  of  Michigan,  four  members  at  $5  per 
day  and  their  expenses;  that  of  Ohio,  four  members  at  $10  per  day 
for  time  actually  employed,  the  total  amount  not  to  exceed  $75  per 
year;  that  of  South  Carolina,  three  members  at  $4  per  day,  the  total 
not  to  exceed  $80  per  year;  and  that  of  Texas  two  members  at  $2,000 
per  year.  The  functions  of  the  boards  of  this  class  are  advisory  in 
character;  that  is  to  say,  their  powers  are  limited  to  the  investigation 
of  applications  for  pardons  and  the  making  of  recommendations  to  the 
governor,  in  whom  the  -actual  pardoning  power  belongs.  Some  of  the 
boards  composed  of  ex  officio  members,  however,  especially  when  the 
governor  is  a  member,  have  the  full  power  to  grant  pardons  and  not 
merely  the  power  to  recommend. 

Generally,  where  pardon  boards  exist,  they  have  the  same  powers 
in  respect  to  parole  that  they  have  in  respect  to  pardons,  but  there  are 
a  good  many  exceptions.  In  Illinois  the  board  of  pardons  is  charged 
with  investigating  applications  for  release  on  parole  from  the  two 
penitentiaries  and  with  making  recommendation?  thereon;  but  the 
power  to  release  on  parole  from  the  reformatory  belongs  to  the  board 
of  managers  thereof.  In  some  states,  like  Kansas,  Kentucky,  Cali- 
fornia and  Georgia,  the  board  of  commissioners  or  managers  of  the 
penitentiary  serves  as  the  board  of  parole.  Several  states  have  sepa- 
rate state  boards  of  parole.  This  is  true  of  New  York,  Indiana,  Iowra 
and  Minnesota.  In  Indiana  it  consists  of  the  warden  of  each  peni- 
tentiary, the  board  of  directors  thereof,  the  chaplain  and  the  physician. 
That  of  New  York  consists  of  the  state  superintendent  of  prisons  and 
two  other  persons  appointed  by  the  governor,  who  receive  salaries  of 
$3,600  per  year  and  their  expenses.  That  of  Iowa  is  composed  of 
three  members  appointed  by  the  governor,  each  of  whom  receives  a 
salary  of  $10  per  day 'for  the  time  actually  employed,  the  total  amount 
not  to  exceed  $1,000  per  year  and  their  expenses.  That  of  Minnesota 
is  composed  of  the  senior  members  of  the  state  board  of  control,  the 
warden  of  the  state  prison  at  Stillwater,  the  superintendent  of  the  state 
reformatory  and  one  non-official  member,  who  receives  a  salary  of 
$10  per  day.  In  several  states  where  there  is  a  central  board  of  control 
of  all  charitable  and  penal  institutions  (as  in  Ohio,  Wisconsin  and 
Washington),  this  board  serves  as  the  board  of  parole.  The  United 
States  parole  board  consists  of  the  superintendent  of  prisons  in  the 
Department  of  Justice,  together  with  the  wardens  and  physicians  of 
the  several  penitentiaries. 


4.      OPINIONS    ON    THE    CENTRAL    BOARD    SYSTEM. 

Success  in  Other  States. 

In  the  states  where  the  central  board  system  of  managing  the 
charitable  and  penal  institutions  prevails,  the  system,  so  far  as  can  be 
ascertained,  is  regarded  as  a  great  improvement  over  the  old  system 
under  which  each  institution  was  managed  by  a  separate  board,  and 
there  seems  to  be  no  sentiment  in  favor  of  reverting  to  the  old  system. 


44  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

The  secretary  of  the  Arizona  board  of  control,  in  a  letter  dated 
January  28,  1914,  says : 

There  is  no  desire  in  the  state  to  return  to  the  old  system  of  a  separate 
board  for  each  institution.  The  board  of  control  plan  is  so  old  in  this 
state,  dating  back  to  1895,  that  I  have  no  information  as  to  how  it  works 
as  compared  with  the  arrangement  which  preceded  it.  However,  we  find  a 
great  saving  can  be  made  by  having  a  purchasing  department  for  all  state 
institutions  and  departments,  and  are  inclined  to  believe  that  increased 
efficiency  results  from  a  central  authority,  and  that  experience  gained  in 
one  institution  can  be  used  to  advantage  in  the  management  of  another. 
In  other  words,  it  provides  a  board  of  experts  on  institutional  manage- 
ment and  also  is  an  advantage  in  that  it  is  able  to  adjust  differences,  and 
arrange  for  cooperation  among  the  institutions. 

The  chairman  of  the  Iowa  board  of  control,  in  a  letter  of  January 
31,  1914,  says: 

We  are  confident  that  the  managing  of  state  institutions  by  a  central- 
ized body,  such  as  our  board,  is  preferable  and  more  economical  than  under 
the  old  trustee  system.  Under  the  old  plan  there  was  more  or  less  politics 
in  the  selection  of  trustees,  while  the  law  creating  our  board  of  control 
made  it  non-partisan.  The  board  of  control  of  Iowa  is  required  to  come 
in  close  contact  with  the  inmates  of  the  various  institutions  and  with  the 
prisoners  in  the  reformatories  and  the  penitentiaries.  In  this  way  we 
become  students  of  character  and  it  aids  materially  in  knowing  how  to 
manage  and  control  the  wards  of  the  state  and,  I  think,  enables  us  to  take 
our  place  in  the  front  rank  of  the  progress  that  has  been  made  in  handling 
derelicts  and  dependents  on  the  state. 

In  a  letter  to  a  committee  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  in  1908,  the 
same  gentleman  said: 

We  are  in  the  office,  when  not  visiting  state  institutions,  every  morning 
at  8  a.  m.,  remaining  until  5  p.  m.,  and  we  have  practically  abandoned  all 
our  own  private  interests,  with  the  result  that  all  criticism  in  regard  to  the 
board  of  control  has  long  since  ceased,  and  I  doubt  if  there  is  a  single 
person  in  the  State  of  Iowa  who  would  advocate  going  back  to  the  old 
trustee  system. 

•  Instead  of  purchasing  for  each  institution  as  formerly,  under  the 
trustee  system,  we  make  all  our  purchases  for  the  fifteen  institutions  under 
our  control  at  one  time.  We  have  a  list  of  manufacturers  and  dealers  in 
all  the  supplies  required  by  our  state  institutions,  and  schedules  with  speci- 
fications are  printed  every  quarter  (of  late  semi-annually)  and  samples 
are  submitted.  All  purchases  for  all  of  the  institutions  are  made  by  us  in 
our  office  in  the  capitol  in  Des  Moines,  and  when  making  awards  no 
bidder  is  allowed  to  be  present.  We  examine  the  samples  and  note  the 
prices,  and  in  all  our  purchases  goods  are  delivered  f.  o.  b.  the  city 
nearest  to  where  the  institution  is  located,  so  that  we  have  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  freight  rates  or  claims  for  damages  if  any  article  is  injured 
in  transit,  the  shipper  being  responsible  for  the  safe  delivery  of  the  goods. 

In  purchasing  articles  as  tea,  coffee,  canned  fruit,  etc.,  we  have  samples 
submitted,  and  when  goods  are  delivered  each  institution  sends  us  a  sample 
of  the  article  as  received,  and  it  is  compared  in  our  office  with  the  sample 
on  which  the  award  was  made.  If  the  article  is  not  equal  to  the  sample  on 
which  the  award  was  made,  the  shipper  is  notified  that  the  goods  ate 
subject  to  his  order,  as  they  will  not  be  accepted.  We  have  no  friends  in 
the  business,  and  it  is  a  cold-blooded  business  transaction  from  beginning 
to  end,  with  careful  attention  to  the  most  minute  details  and  securing  of 
the  best  that  can  be  had  at  the  least  possible  price. 

When  the  goods  are  received,  the  institution  makes  a  voucher  and  this 
is  forwarded  to  the  shipper  for  execution,  and  after  being  certified  to  by 
the  chief  executive  officer  of  the  institution  that  the  articles  have  been 


CHARITABLE   AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  45 

received  in  good  order,  the  voucher  is  forwarded  to  us  and,  when  approved, 
an  abstract  is  made  and  furnished  the  Auditor  of  the  State,  who  makes 
his  warrant  on  the  State  Treasurer,  who  sends  check  direct  to  the  party 
furnishing  the  goods. 

We  handle  no  money  whatever,  and  no  money  is  handled  at  the  insti- 
tution except  that  provided  for  in  the  payroll  and  a  small  amount  for 
contingent,  not  exceeding  $250,  which  is  left  in  the  hands  of  the  superin- 
tendent to  provide  against  any  emergency  whereby  loss  to  the  property 
of  the  state  might  be  sustained.  Due  reports  of  all  expenditures  from 
-  this  fund  are  made  to  our  office  every  month  and  we  also  require  a  weekly 
statement  of  the  disbursements  of  all  articles  at  the  state  institutions, 
whether  it  is  a  paper  of  pins,  a  carload  of  flour,  a  carload  of  sugar,  or  a 
ton  of  coffee,  our  books  being  an  exact  duplicate  of  the  books  of  the  dis- 
bursing officers  at  the  state  institution. 

In  an  address  before  the  National  Conference  of  Charities  and 
Corrections  in  1902,  the  president  of  the  Iowa  board  of  control  stated 
further  that  "When  each  institution  had  a  separate  board,  the  members 
met  once  a  month  or  once  a  quarter  to  look  after  the  affairs  of  the 
institution,  taking  their  own  business  with  them,  and,  of  course,  hurried 
home  as  soon  as  possible,  the  real  management  devolving  upon  the 
executive  officers  of  the  institution.  Now  there  are  three  men  in 
session  every  working  day  of  the  year  from  8  o'clock  until  5,  and 
again  in  the  evening,  devoting  their  entire  time  to  the  interests  of  those 
entrusted  to  their  care."  Under  this  system,  he  adds,  there  was  a 
saving  of  $175,000  during  the  first  year  and  this,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  the  inmates  of  the  institution  received  better  care  and  a  higher 
qualiy  of  food  and  clothing. 

A  member  of  the  West  Virginia  board  of  control,  in  a  letter  of 
February  9,  1914,  writes: 

Before  1909  each  public  institution  of  the  state  was  under  the  manage- 
ment and  control  of  a  board  of  directors  or  of  regents.  The  state  board 
of  control  has  full  control  and  management  of  all  the  state  institutions 
except  the  educational  institutions,  and  of  these  it  has  control  of  the 
business  management,  while  the  state  board  of  regents  has  control  of  the 
educational  side.  We  find  the  change  most  beneficial.  There  have  been 
very  large  reductions  made  in  the  cost  of  maintaining  these  institutions, 
while  their  efficiency  has  been  increased.  There  is  no  desire  whatever  to 
return  to  the  old  system  of  separate  boards  for  each  institution. 

A  member  of  the  board  of  control  of  the  state  of  Washington,  in 
a  letter  of  February  2,  1914,  says : 

The  state  board  of  control,  composed  of  three  members,  has  entire 
charge  of  all  reformatory  institutions  in  the  state,  also  insane  hospitals, 
soldiers'  home,  school  for  the  deaf,  school  for  the  blind,  institution  for  the 
feeble-minded,  and  the  state  penitentiary.  We  feel  that  it  is  a  general 
conclusion  in  this  state  that  one  central  board  is  far  superior  to  having 
individual  boards  for  each  of  the  institutions,  and  that  it  has  been  satis- 
factorily established  that  there  has  been  an  improvement  in  the  efficiency 
with  which  the  institutions 'are  managed  since  this  change  took  place,  some 
fourteen  years  ago. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Wisconsin  board  of  control  writes  January 
29,  1914: 

The  centralized  board  system  has  been  in  operation  in  this  state  since 
1881,  more  than  thirty  years.  All  of  the  state,  charitable,  reformatory  and 
penal  institutions  are  managed  by  the  centralized  board  system  in  Wiscon- 
sin, and  all  those  institutions  have  been  managed  by  a  central  board  since 


46  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

1881.  1  assume  that  the  reason  why  your  penal  institutions  were  not  put 
under  the  management  of  the  Board  of  Administration  of  Illinois  was  that 
it  was  thought  by  the  Legislature  that  there  would  be  too  many  institutions 
for  one  board  to  manage. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  your  reformatory  and  penal  institutions 
should  also  be  managed  by  your  State  Board  of  Administration,  but  I  think 
that  the  next  best  thing  to  do  would  be  to  create  one  board  for  the 
management  of  those  institutions.  The  difficulty  is  that  when  institutions 
are  managed  by  different  boards  of  trustees  or  commissioners,  there  is  a 
lack  of  uniformity  in  business  methods  and  in  accounting  methods,  and 
there  is  also  a  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  policies  which  govern  the  institu- 
tions. I  am  a  great  believer  in  centralized  power  and  centralized  authority. 
If  a  board  is  to  be  created  in  your  State  to  manage  the  reformatory  and 
penal  institutions,  I  believe  that  a  centralized  department  should  be 
created  in  the  capitol  and  that  the  members  of  the  board  should  be  obliged 
•to  devote  all  their  time  to  the  management  of  the  institutions.  It  may  be 
argued  that  there  will  not  be  sufficient  work  for  the  members  of  the  insti- 
tutions, but  I  believe  that  if  efficiency  is  to  be  produced  and  better  methods 
to  be  employed,  that  it  will  require  the  time  of  a  board  of  at  least  three 
members.  A  centralized  board  ought  not  only  to  take  care  of  the  present 
needs  of  the  institutions,  but  should  also  formulate  policies  for  the  future 
and  things  should  be  planned  ahead. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  show  what  reduction  has  been  'made  in  the  cost 
of  maintenance  in  Wisconsin  by  the  state  board  of  control.  You  under- 
stand that  any  comparison  of  cost  in  the  last  five  or  six  years  as  compared 
with  any  previous  period  would  not  mean  anything  because  the  cost  of  the 
different  supplies  has  so"  materially  advanced.  We  know  to  a  certainty 
that  the  institutions  under  the  control  of  this  board  are  much  more 
efficiently  managed  and  that  they  are  producing  better  results  than  when 
they  were  managed  by  the  boards  of  trustees.  There  is  no  sentiment  in 
Wisconsin  to  abolish  the  present  board  and  go  back  to  the  old  system. 
In  fact  I  have  never  heard  that  advocated  by  anybody  since  I  have  been 
in  this  department  and  I  have  been  here  for  more  than  eighteen  years. 

"Under  the  old  system,"  says  another  witness,  "each  institution 
[in  Wisconsin]  was  the  prey  of  local  business  men;  there  was  little 
or  no  competition  in  the  purchase  of  supplies ;  there  was  a  popular  idea 
that  the  institution  existed  for  the  benefit  of  the  locality.  Under  the 
present  system  the  per  capita  cost  of  maintenance  has  been  steadily 
reduced  in  spite  of  the  increased  price  of  supplies  and  the  expense  of 
improvements  made  through  the  use  of  a  surplus  acquired  by  economy." 

Expert  Opinion  in  Favor  of  Centralised  Control  of  Penal  Institutions. 

In  1902  a  committee  of  the  National  Prison  Association,  consisting 
of  Professor  Charles  R.  Henderson,  Dr.  F.  H.  Wines,  Professor 
Francis  Wayland  and  Eugene  Smith,  Esq.,  made  an  investigation  of 
the  methods  of  supervision  and  control  of  penal  institutions  in  the 
United  States  and  Europe.  Among  the  questions  considered  was 
whether  all  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  of  a  state  should  be 
placed  under  a  single  board  of  commissioners  with  powers  of  direction 
and  control.  The  committee  sent  out  a  questionnaire  to  a  number  of 
penologists  and  officials  of  penal  institutions,  and  of  those  who  replied 
twenty-eight  expressed  an  opinion  in  favor  of  a  central  board  of 
control  and  ten  were  opposed.  After  an  elaborate  examination  of  the 
systems  of  penal  administration  in  this  country  and  Europe,  the  com- 
mittee expressed  the  conclusion  that  all  penal  and  correctional  institu- 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  47 

• 

tions  should  be  placed  under  the  control  of  a  single  administrative 
agency,  which  might  be  either  a  commissioner  or  a  board  of  commis- 
sioners, or  there  might  be  a  division  of  authority  between  the  two. 
Central  administrative  control,  said  the  committee,  is  the  only  method 
by  which  the  people  of  the  commonwealth  can  be  assured  of  a  unified 
system  of  equitable  execution  of  penalties  and  it  is  the  best  way  of 
securing  a  uniform  system  of  purchases  of  supplies  and  a  uniform  and 
reliable  system  of  records  and  accounts.  As  a  permanent  agency,  it 
would  accumulate  information  within  the  state  and  be  able  to  learn  the 
lesson  of  experience  throughout  the  world.  This  is  the  system  in  the 
most  enlightened  countries  of  Europe,  where  the  administration  of  the 
penal  institutions  has  attained  a  high  degree  of  efficiency. 

This  recommendation  is  in  line  with  present-day  tendencies  and 
it  represents  the  views  of  a  majority  of  penologists  and  administrative 
officials  who  have  had  practical  experiences  in  the  management  of  penal 
institutions.  The  state  superintendent  of  prisons  in  New  York,  in  a 
letter  of  January  29,  1914,  to  the  Illinois  Committee  on  Efficiency  and 
Economy,  says :  "The  four  large  prisons  for  men,  the  state  prison  for 
women  and  the  two  state  hospitals  for  the  criminal  insane  are  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  superintendent  of  state  prisons.  They  have 
always  been  under  one  central  authority  and  I  do  not  see  how  they 
could  be  otherwise  operated  without  great  loss  to  the  state." 

Dr.  William  A.  White,  superintendent  of  the  Government  Hospital 
for  the  Insane,  Washington,  D.  C,  writes  in  reply  to  a  request  for  his 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  advisability  of  consolidating  the  management 
of  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  of  Illinois  in  the  hands  of  a 
single  board: 

As  to  the  general  proposition  of  the  advisability  of  placing  the  penal 
and  reformatory  institutions  under  the  same  board  of  control  as  head  of 
the  charities  system  of  the  State,  on  general  principles  it  would  seem  to 
me  a  perfectly  proper  arrangement.  I  am  a  great  believer  in  concentrating 
and  centralizing  both  authority  and  responsibility.  I  can  see  objections, 
however,  to  such  an  arrangement,  as  from  the  present  way  of  looking 
at  things,  these  separate  classes  of  institutions  are  doing  separate  kinds 
of  work.  However,  from  the  broader  humanistic  standpoint  they  are  all 
dealing  with  the  inefficients  in  the  community  who  have  to  be  cared  for, 
and  if  it  is  realized  that  so-called  crime  is  as  much  a  result  of  the  inef- 
ficiency of  the  individual  to  measure  up  to  the  social  standards  as  so- 
called  insanity,  and  that  the  so-called  criminal  should  be  treated  by  the 
State  with  the  object  of  returning  him  to  good  citizenship,  just  as  the 
so-called  insane  person  is  treated  by  the  institution  with  a  similar  end 
in  view,  then  it  would  seem  eminently  proper  and  a  step  forward  to 
group  them  all  together  under  a  single  board  of  control.  If  that  were 
to  be  done,  however,  I  should  want  to  feel  that  the  moving  principle  back 
of  the  whole  arrangement  was  one  of  progress  making  for  higher  ideals 
which  were  essentially  humanistic  and  that  the  control  would  be  in  the 
hands  of  broad-minded,  generously  disposed  men.  If  this  can't  be  done 
it  would  perhaps  be  better  to  have  the  penal  institutions  separately  con- 
ducted from  either  the  charitable  on  the  one  hand  or  the  hospitals  for 
the  insane  on  the  other.  In  any  event  such  a  board  would  of  course  be 
a  representative  one,  the  representatives  of  each  varying  interest  being 
present  to  look  after- their  separate  needs. 

Of  course  I  do  not  know  from  your  letter  what  your  problem  is. 
Apparently  your  committee  has  been  created  to  cure  certain  existing,  or 
presumed  to  exist,  evils  and  no  intelligent  advice  can  be  given  as  to  how 


48  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

to  proceed   with  the  cure,  unless  the  diagnosis  has  first  been  made, 
therefore  feel  at  a  loss  to  make  any  suggestions  to  you  because  1  do  not 
know  what  you  are  trying  to  do.    From  the  standpoint  purely  of  economic 
administration  the  consideration  of  building  and  the  furnishing  of  supplies 
I  should  think  it  would  be  an  eminently  proper  thing  to  group  all  the 
boards  and  have  a  central  purchasing  committee  who  would  look  a 
the  supplying  of  all  of  the  public  institutions  of  the  State  from  a  central 
point.     This  could  be  made  to  have  undoubted  economic  advantages  al- 
though' naturally  it  would  have  its  great  dangers  because  the  board  would 
have  in  their  control  large  sums  of  money  with  all  the  consequent  pos 
sibilities  of  trouble  that  might  ensue. 

Warden  James  B.  Smith,  of  the  Southern  Illinois  penitentiary  at 
Chester,  in  a  letter  of  April  4,  1908,  addressed  to  Hon.  J.  W.  Hill, 
chairman  of  a  Legislative  Committee  appointed  to  investigate  condi- 
tions in  the  State  institutions,  advocated  the  placing  of  the  peniten- 
tiaries under  the  control  of  a  single  board.  He  said: 

I  believe  that  the  State  should  have  a  board  of  control  and  then  the  warden 
and  superintendent  should  give  their  whole  time,  or  as  much  as  possible  to  look- 
ing after  and  making  a  study  of  every  man  who  is  confined  in  the  institution 
of  which  they  are  the  head.  In  regard  to  the  board  of  control  I  will  say  that 
I  am  familiar  with  the  systems  used  in  the  various  states  and  am  more  favorably 
impressed  with  that  adopted  by  the  state  of  Ohio  than  any  other. 

Criticism  of  the  System  of  Centralized  Administration. 

A  comprehensive  and  careful  investigation  has  recently  been  made 
by  Mr.  H.  C.  Wright  for  the  state  charities  aid  association  of  New 
York  of  the  fiscal  methods  of  institutional  administration  in  the  states 
of  Iowa,  Indiana  and  New  York.  In  Iowa  all  the  fifteen  charitable, 
penal  and  reformatory  institutions  are  under  the  management  of  a 
central  board,  which  purchases  supplies  and  controls  the  finances  of 
the  institutions.  In  Indiana  each  separate  institution  is  under  the 
control  of  a  board  of  managers,  which  purchases  the  supplies  for  its 
own  institution  and  controls  the  financial  administration  of  the  institu- 
tion without  being  subject  to  the  control  of  any  central  authority. 
The  Indiana  and  Iowa  systems  are,  therefore,  directly  opposite  in 
character.  In  New  York  the  institutions  are  divided  into  three  classes : 
(1)  The  prisons  and  hospitals  for  insane  criminals  are  under  the 
control  of  the  state  superintendent  of  prisons;  (2)  the  other  insane 
hdspitals,  which  are  under  the  control  of  a  state  commission  in  lunacy, 
and  (3)  the  charitable  institutions,  whose  fiscal  operations  are  subject 
to  the  control  of  the  state  fiscal  supervisor.  The  managing  officer  of 
each  institution  is  required  to  prepare  estimates  of  the  supplies  needed 
by  his  institution  and  to  transmit  these  to  the  central  officer  or  author- 
ity (the  state  superintendent  of  prisons  in  the  case  of  prisons ;  the  fiscal 
supervisor  in  the  case  of  the  charitable  institutions),  who  has  power 
to  grant  or  refuse  the  supplies  asked  for,  or  to  decrease  or  increase 
the  amount  of  the  estimated  price.  Nothing  can  be  purchased  by  an 
institution  except  upon  approval  of  the  estimate  by  the  supervising 
•  authority.  In  practice,  the  superintendent  of  prisons  seldom  refuses 
the  estimates  or  alters  the  estimated  prices.  The  fiscal  supervisor,  how- 
ever, frequently  reduces  the  prices  in  the  estimates  of  the  charitable 
institutions. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  49 

Mr.  Wright  calls  attention  to  the  advantages  of  the  estimate  system 
and  the  common  purchase  of  supplies  for  all  the  institutions ;  but  at  the 
same  time  he  points  out  several  disadvantages,  one  of  which  is  to  make 
the  superintending  office  merely  an  administrative  agent  of  the  central 
department.  The  kind  and  quality  of  the  supplies  he  uses  are  deter- 
mined at  Albany.  He  is  told  how  and  where  he  may  purchase  them; 
and  he  may  be  told,  and  in  some  cases  is,  just  how  he  shall  dress  the 
inmates.  He  is  told  how  many  teachers  he  may  have  in  the  school. 
The  fiscal  supervisor  controls  absolutely  the  finances  of  the  charitable 
institutions  and  practically  dictates  every  feature  of  their  management. 
Even  the  medical  department,  we  are  told,  which  falls  more  directly 
under  the  supervision  of  the  state  board  of  charities,  is  practically 
controlled  by  the  fiscal  supervisor,  since  he  can  dictate  the  number  of 
medical  officers  which  the  institution  may  have.  He  is,  in  short,  the 
sole  arbiter  of  the  management  of  the  charitable  institutions. 

This  dictation  from  Albany,  says  Mr.  Wright,  of  minute  details 
tends  to  destroy  initiative  on  the  part  of  the  superintendents  and  to 
make  them  indifferent  as  to  the  results  that  they  may  attain.  In  the 
various  institutions  visited,  there  was  an  atmosphere  of  discouragement 
and  a  tendency  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  everything  upon  the  con- 
trolling officials  at  Albany. 

The  requirement  that  no  articles  may  be  purchased  by  the  super- 
intendents or  wardens  except  upon  estimates  approved  by  the  proper 
authority  often  handicaps  the  managing  officials  and  interferes  with  the 
good  administration  of  the  institutions.  On  one  occasion,  for  example, 
the  superintendent  of  one  of  the  institutions  wrote  to  the  fiscal  super- 
visor asking  for  the  privilege  of  purchasing,  in  advance  of  estimating 
therefor,  three  lengths  of  stove  pipe  to  replace  a  rusted-out  one.  The 
fiscal  supervisor  gave  him  permission  to  purchase  the  said  stove  pipe, 
but  cautioned  him  against  oversight  of  this  kind  in  the  future.  On 
another  occasion  the  fiscal  supervisor  refused  to  approve  «an  estimate 
for  a  bottle  of  ink  desired  by  one  of  the  institutions  on  the  ground  that 
the  estimate  did  not  specify  the  size  of  the  bottle. 

While  in  general  the  estimate  system  tends  to  prevent  extravagance 
in  the  purchase  of  supplies,  it  does  not  permit  superintendents  to  take 
advantage  of  a  low  local  market.  Thus  local  farmers  often  offer  pota- 
toes, cabbage,  fruits  and  other  articles  of  this  character  at  rates  con- 
siderably below  the  market  prices,,  at  which  they  could  be  purchased 
from  wholesale  market  men.  An  example  was  afforded  by  the  follow- 
ing case: 

One  of  the  institutions  desired  to  purchase  a  stack  of  hay  from  a 
neighboring  farmer  but  it  was  necessary  for  the  superintendent  to  get  per- 
mission from  the  fiscal  supervisor  at  Albany.  As  there  was  a  delay  in 
granting  the  permission,  the  superintendent  took  the  liberty  of  purchasing 
the  hay,  trusting  that  his  action  would  be  approved.  In  fact,  however,  it 
was  disapproved  and  severely  criticised  and  it  was  only  after  considerable 
correspondence  that  the  fiscal  supervisor  would  permit  payment  for  the 
hay. 

In  regard  to  the  joint  purchase  of  supplies,  Mr.  Wright  declares 
that  under  the  New  York  system  butter  has  cost  more  than  when  pur- 


SO  EFFICIENCY   AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

chased  by  separate  institutions ;  that  ninety  (90)  per  cent  of  the  butter 
was  below  contract  specifications;  that  the  same  was  true  of  the  beef 
supply  and  other  articles. 

Mr.  Wright  criticizes  the  methods  of  the  fiscal  supervisor,  who, 
he  says,  has  so  administered  his  office  as  to  lessen  the  attention  and 
strength  which  the  superintendents  would  otherwise  be  able  to  give  to 
the  care  of  the  inmates.  The  necessity  of  almost  daily  argument  on 
the  part  of  the  superintendents  with  the  fiscal  supervisor's  office  by 
means  of  correspondence,  telephone  and  telegraph,  to  secure  small  arti- 
cles of  daily  need  has  left  little  time  to  be  devoted  to  the  larger  needs 
of  the  institutions. 

His  policy  seems  to  have  been  to  appear  to  save  by  reducing  the 
prices  permitted  for  any  and  all  articles  wherever  possible,  regardless 
of  the  insignificance  of  the  article  or  the  amount  of  the  reduction. 
The  result  has  been  that  what  in  a  great  many  cases  appears  to  be  a 
saving  was  an  actual  loss,  due  to  the  substitution  of  an  inferior  article 
or  due  to  the  necessity  of  paying  an  amount  of  freight  or  express. 

The  New  York  estimate  system,  he  says,  is  very  expensive, 
amounting  to  about  $30,000  a  year  in  the  fiscal  supervisor's  depart- 
ment and  $19,000  a  year  in  the  lunacy  commission.  In  fact,  the  cost 
of  operating  the  supervising  offices  in  New  York  is  out  of  all  proportion 
to  the  expense  of  maintaining  the  institutions.  Thus  the  cost  of  oper- 
ating the  offices  of  the  superintendent  of  prisons,  the  lunacy  commis- 
sion, the  boards  of  managers,  the  fiscal  supervisor,  the  board  of  char- 
ities and  the  state  architect  amounts  to  $238,488  per  year,  whereas  in 
Indiana  the  cost  of  supervision  amounts  to  only  $30,000  and  in  Iowa 
$37,510. 

Mr.  Wright  defends  the  Indiana  system,  where  each  institution 
is  under  the  management  of  a  separate  board.  He  finds  that  the  insti- 
tutions there  are  economically  administered  and  the  welfare  of  the 
inmates  carefully  looked  after.  Supplies  are  purchased  as  cheaply 
under  the  Indiana  system  as  under  the  New  York  or  Ipwa  system. 
But  he  admits  that  conditions  in  Indiana  are  somewhat  exceptional, 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  state  has  had  for  many  years  men  with  very 
unusual  qualifications  upon  its  institutional  boards.  In  conclusion,  he 
makes  the  following  suggestions : 

(a)  An  institution  with  an  inmate  population  of  400  or  over  can 
ordinarily  secure  as  low  prices  as  can  a  central  body  with  power  to  con- 
tract for  larger  quantities. 

(b)  Superintendents  and  stewards  and  boards  of  managers  exercise 
as  discriminating  and  reliable  judgment  in  the  selecting  and  contracting 
for  supplies  as  is  now  exercised  by  central  bodies. 

(c)  Institutions,    whether   operating    independently   without    central 
control,  or  up  to  the  present  time  with  central  control,  do  not  meet  as 
efficiently  as  seems  desirable,  some  of  the  larger  problems  of  institutional 
management  which  require  expert  knowledge. 

(d)  In  those  institutions  which  seem  to  do  the  best  work  and'  seem 
to  care  for  the  inmates  most  satisfactorily,  the  superintendent  is  given, 
under  the  general  direction  of  the  board  of  managers,  a  large  degree  of 
liberty  with  a  corresponding  responsibility. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  51 

B.      IN    FOREIGN    COUNTRIES. 

1.    In  England. 
Poor  Relief. 

In  England  the  management  of  the  charitable  and  penal  insti- 
tutions, as  well  as  the  control  of  the  poor  relief  generally,  is  more 
unified  and  centralized  than  in  the  United  States.  Control  and  super- 
vision of  poor  relief  is  centered  in  the  local  government  board,  whose 
president  is  a  member  of  parliament  and  of  the  cabinet.  The  staff  of 
the  board  includes  a  permanent  secretary,  a  parliamentary  secretary 
and  a  corps  of  inspectors.  Its  powers  include  the  organization  of  poor 
law  authorities,  the  issuing  of  orders  and  regulations,  supervision  of 
the  administration  of  poor  relief  by  the  local  authorities,  the  collection 
of  the  poor  law  information,  the  hearing  of  appeals  from  the  local  poor 
law  authorities  in  respect  to  complaints  against  guardians,  and  the 
determination  of  disputes  between  poor  law  unions. 

The  supervision  of  poor  law  administration  by  the  local  authorities 
is  carried  out  through  a  system  of  rigid  inspection  by  agents  of  the 
local  government  board,  who  make  regular  visits  to  the  work  houses, 
asylums,  homes  and  other  institutions  for  poor  relief,  and  who  attend 
meetings  of  the  local  poor  law  authorities.  A  strict  control  of  tne 
financial  operations  of  the  local  poor  law  authorities  is  exercised 
through  the  examinations  of  the  auditors,  of  whom  there  is  one  for 
each  of  the  fifty  districts.  The  local  poor  law  authorities  are  required 
to  keep  their  accounts  according  to  a  uniform  system  prescribed  by  the 
Local  Government  Board. 

The  administration  of  poor  relief  through  private  agencies  is  like- 
wise subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  state.  The  organization  through 
which  this  supervision  is  exercised  is  the  charities  commission  created 
by  an  act  of  parliament  in  1853.  It  consists  of  four  members  appointed 
by  the  Crown,  and  its  jurisdiction  embraces  all  privately  endowed 
charities,  with  a  few  exceptions.  It  is  empowered  to  examine  the 
accounts  of  private  institutions  and  to  compel  their  officers  to  make 
reports  to  it;  to  remove  and  appoint  trustees  of  such  institutions;  to 
order  changes  in  the  administration  of  a  particular  charity,  and  to  take 
measures  looking  toward  the  safe  custody  and  investment  of  their 
funds. 

Cure  of  the  Insane. 

The  administration  of  the  asylums  for  the  insane  has  been  defi- 
nitely centralized  by  a  recent  Act  of  Parliament  (3  and  4,  Geo.  V.,  ch. 
38,  1913).  Prior  to  the  enactment  of  this  law  the  asylums  were  admin- 
istered by  county  councils  committees,  subject  to  some  supervision  by 
commissioners  in  lunacy,  who  are  aided  by  local  visiting  committees. 
The  act  of  1913  substitutes  a  central  board  of  control  composed  of 
fifteen  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Crown,  of  whom  not  more  than 
twelve  are  salaried,  and  of  whom  four  must  be  barristers  at  law  and 
four  practitioners  of  medicine.  At  least  one  of  the  paid  commissioners 
must  be  a  woman.  The  staff  of  the  board  includes  a  secretary  and  a 
number  of  inspectors.  In  general,  the  powers  of  the  board  of  control 


52  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

embrace  the  functions  of  supervision,  protection  and  control  over  de- 
fectives; supervision  of  the  administration  of  the  local  authorities  in 
so  far  as  they  are  charged  with  duties  in  relation  to  defectives ;  super- 
vision and  inspection  of  homes  and  institutions  for  the  care  of  defec- 
tives; and  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  institutions  for  dan- 
gerous and  violent  defectives.  The  commissioners  in  lunacy,  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  the  judges  or  masters  in  lunacy,  and  the  local  authorities 
retain  certain  powers  in  relation  to  defectives  which  were  not  trans- 
ferred to  the  board  of  control  by  the.  Act  of  1913. 

Penal  Institutions. 

Prior  to  1898  the  prison  administration  of  England,  although  very 
definitely  centralized,  was  nevertheless  divided  between  two  authorities, 
those  in  charge  of  the  convict  prisons  and  those  in  charge  of  the  ordi- 
nary prisons.  Both  sets  of  authorities,  however,  were  under  the  control 
of  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Home  Affairs,  which  gave  the  system 
a  unified  and  centralized  character.  By  an  Act  of  1898,  both  bodies 
were  consolidated  and  their  powers  vested  in  the  Prison  Commission. 
This  commission  is  composed  of  not  more  than  five  members,  appointed 
by  the  Crown  upon  the  advice  of  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Home 
Affairs.  It  is  vested  with  the  superintendence  of  prisons,  appoints 
subordinate  officers,  makes  contracts,  releases  offenders  upon  probation 
from  the  Borstal  institutions,  and  performs  such  other  acts  as  are 
necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  the  inmates  of  prisons  subject  to  their 
control.  The  commission  is  required  to  visit  and  inspect  all  prisons 
within  its  jurisdiction,  not  only  in  respect  to  the  welfare  of  the  pris- 
oners, the  state  of  the  buildings,  etc.,  but  with  reference  to  their  finan- 
cial operations,  earnings  of  prisoners,  expenses  and  other  like  matters. 
In  the  discharge  of  these  duties  the  commission  is  aided  by  a  staff  of 
inspectors  and  auditors,  who  make  reports  to  the  commission  and  keep 
it  informed  in  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  several  prisons.  The 
financial  supervision  of  the  prisons  is  exercised  by  two  officials  of  the 
commission,  who  bear  the  title  of  store  accountants.  In  addition  to 
the  inspections  made  by  the  prison  commission,  the  law  provides  for 
inspections  by  visiting  committees  of  justices  of  the  peace,  one  annually 
appointed  for  each  prison.  They  are  charged  with  hearing  complaints 
from  prisoners  and  they  make  reports  to  the  Secretary  of  State  con- 
cerning abuses  which  they  find,  and  in  regard  to  other  matters  which, 
in  their  opinion,  need  attention.  Finally,  any  justice  of  the  peace 
having  jurisdiction  in  the  locality  in  which  a  prison  is  situated  or  in  the 
community  where  the  offense  for  which  a  prisoner  is  confined  was 
committed,  may  enter  in  the  visitors'  book  any  observation  which  he 
sees  fit  to  make  in  respect  to  the  condition  of  the  prison  or  any  abuses 
therein,  and  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  jailor  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
visiting  committee  at  the  time  of  their  next  visit  to  such  entry. 

The  Borstal  institutions — reformatories  in  which  offenders  be- 
tween the  ages  of  16  and  21  years  and  also  incorrigible  adults  not  guilty 
of  any  particular  crime  are  confined — are  subject  to  the  same  adminis- 
tration as  the  other  prisons  and  reformatories.  The  administration  of 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  53 

certain  other  institutions  of  a  reformatory  and  industrial  character, 
for  the  confinement  of  offenders  under  16  years  of  age,  is  less  central- 
ized, although  they  are  under  the  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
for  Home  Affairs,  who  exercises  his  powers  through  inspectors. 

2.    In  France. 

Charity  Administration. 

In  France  the  administration  of  poor  relief  is  divided  among  the 
communes,  the  departments  and  the  state.  But  whether  the  adminis- 
tration is  local  or  central,  the  state  exercises  supervision  over  all  insti- 
tutions of  public  assistance  and  over  their  activities  along  certain  lines. 
There  are  nine  institutions,  most  of  them  asylums,  which  are  under 
the  direct  and  immediate  control  of  the  state.  They  are  under  the 
control  of  the  minister  of  the  interior,  through  whom  also  the  state 
exercises  supervision  over  local  charitable  institutions  and  activities. 
Two  bureaus  in  the  ministry  are  charged  with  these  duties,  namely, 
the  "direction"  of  assistance  and  public  health,  and  the  service  of 
general  inspection,  to  which  should  be  added  the  superior  council  of 
public  assistance.  The  latter  is  an  advisory  board  composed  of  ex 
officio  members  within  the  ministry  and  of  non-official  members  having 
special  qualifications  with  regard  to  the  problems  of  poor  relief.  It 
holds  meetings  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  policies,  criticising  pro- 
posed measures  and  for  advising  the  administration. 

Every  department  into  which  France  is  divided  (87  in  number) 
is  required  to  maintain  a  public  asylum  for  the  care  of  the  insane  or 
to  enter  into  arrangements  with  a  private  asylum  for  the  maintenance 
of  its  insane.  Private  asylums  can  be  established  only  by  authority  of 
the  government  and  they  are  subject  to  the  supervision  and  inspection 
of  the  government. 

Although  supported  mainly  by  local  taxation,  the  departmental 
asylums  are  under  the  control  of  the  state.  They  are  managed  by 
directors  appointed  by  the  minister  of  the  interior,  the  other  officers 
being  chosen  by  the  prefect,  who  is  himself  an  appointee  of  the  minister 
of  the  interior  and  an  agent  of  the  central  government. 

Communal  hospitals  and  alms  houses  are  managed  by  an  adminis- 
trative commission  in  each  commune,  a  portion  of  the  members  of 
which  are  appointed  by  the  prefect  of  the  department.  Associations 
for  private  relief  may  now  (since  1904)  be  organized  without  govern- 
mental authorization,  except  where  they  desire  to  receive  gifts  and 
legacies.  They  are  still  required,  however,  to  make  a  "declaration  of 
existence"  to  the  government.  They  are  subject  to  inspection  by  the 
state  authorities  and  their  methods  of  administration  are  subject  to 
alteration  by  the  state. 

In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  poor  relief  in  France,  whether 
administered  by  public  or  private  agency,  is  under  the  control  and 
supervision  of  the  central  government. 


54  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

Prison  Administration. 

Until  very  recently  the  administration  of  all  penal  institutions  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  minister  of  the  interior  of  the  central  government. 
In  1911,  however,  after  long  agitation,  it  was  transferred  to  the  min- 
istry of  justice.  The  prisons  are  divided  into  three  classes,  (1)  the 
departmental,  or  short  sentence  prisons,  including  houses  of  correc- 
tional justice  and  houses  of  detention;  (2)  the  central  houses  of 
detention  and  correctional  justice;  (3)  the  colonies  for  juvenile  delin- 
quents. The  minister  of  justice  stands  at  the  head  of  the  service  for 
the  administration  of  the  prisons.  Within  the  ministry  is  a  department 
or  "direction"  of  penal  administration,  and  it  is  subdivided  into  three 
bureaus : 

(1)  A  bureau  having  charge  of  the  execution  of  sentences; 

(2)  A  bureau  which  has  charge  of  general  matters,  statistics,  etc. ; 

and, 

(3)  A  bureau  having  charge  of  establishments  for  juvenile  offend- 

ers, parole,  etc. 

The  inspection  of  prisons,  however,  remains  with  the  authorities 
(in  the  ministry  of  the  interior),  which  have  charge  of  the  inspection 
of  the  charitable  institutions.  Reports  of  the  inspectional  authorities 
are  made  to  the  minister  of  justice.  In  harmony  with  the  well-estab- 
lished principle  of  French  administration  of  associating  a  consultative 
council  with  each  important  administrative  authority,  there  is  a  superior 
council  of  prisons  created  for  the  purpose  of  giving  advice  to  the 
administrative  authorities  and  for  criticising  proposed  policies  and 
measures.  It  is  composed  of  thirty-six  members,  of  whom  twenty-four 
are  ex  officio  members  and  twelve  are  non-official  persons  who  are 
chosen  because  of  their  special  knowledge  of  penological  matters.  It 
holds  two  meetings  a  year  for  the  purpose  of  considering  matters 
relating  to  the  construction  and  repair  of  prisons,  rules  for  the  internal 
administration  of  prisons,  the  distribution  of  subventions,  classifications 
of  penal  institutions,  etc. 

In  addition  to  the  superior  council  of  prisons,  there  are  a  number 
of  committees  and  commissions  created  for  the  purpose  of  consultation 
in  respect  to  various  special  and  more  or  less  technical  matters  relating 
to  the  administration  of  the  prisons. 

Local  prisons,  detentions,  reformatories  and  similar  institutions, 
although  locally  administered,  are  under  a  more  or  less  strict  central 
control  and  supervision.  Private  institutions,  which  are  partly  educa- 
tional, partly  industrial  and  partly  reformatory  in  character,  are  under 
the  general  supervision  of  the  state,  which  also  appoints  the  director 
by  which  they  are  actually  managed.  Both  public  and  private  reforma- 
tories and  penal  colonies  are  under  the  surveillance  and  inspection  of 
a  council  composed  of  various  official  and  non-official  members,  one  of 
whom  is  appointed  by  the  prefect. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  55 

3.     In  Germany. 

Poor  relief  in  Germany  is  regulated  by  imperial  laws  which  apply 
to  all  the  states  of  the  empire  with  the  exception  of  Bavaria.  For  the 
purpose  of  local  administration  there  are  two  sets  of  authorities:  the 
local  poor  unions  and  the  general  poor  unions,  the  greatest  part  of  the 
relief  being  administered  by  the  former.  Unlike  the  English  and 
French  systems  the  administrative  control  of  the  state  over  poor  relief 
is  not  very  strict.  Disputes  between  local  poor  unions  are,  however, 
settled  by  the  judicial  authorities  and  disputes  between  unions  of  dif- 
ferent states  are  determined  by.the  "deputation  of  home  affairs,"  with 
the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Imperial  Home  Office. 

Charitable  Institutions. 

The  administration  of  charitable  and  reformatory  institutions  is, 
in  Prussia,  a  part  of  the  administration  of  poor  relief.  They  include 
such  institutions  as  workhouses,  and  asylums  for  the  insane,  for  epilep- 
tics, for  the  blind,  and  for  the  feeble  minded,  all  of  which  are  under 
the  supervision  and  control  of  the  state.  As  a  rule  this  control  is 
actually  exercised  by  the  provincial  and  communal  diets  through  super- 
intendents chosen  by  the  diets.  Regulations  adopted  by  the  local 
assemblies  for  the  government  of  charitable  and  reformatory  institu- 
tions, however,  require  the  approval  of  the  minister  of  the  interior.  It 
is  by  this  means  that  the  state  is  enabled  to  exercise  an  effective  control 
over  the  institutions. 

In  the  other  German  states  all  such  institutions  are  supported 
directly  by  the  state  and  are  therefore  under  the  more  immediate  con- 
trol of  the  state. 

Penal  Institutions. 

In  Prussia  the  penal  institutions  are  divided  into  three  classes: 
(1)  penitentiaries;  (2)  ordinary  prisons;  and  (3)  fortress  prisons. 
Those  of  the  first  two  classes  are  under  the  administration  of  the  civil 
authorities;  the  fortress  prisons  are  under  the  administration  of  the 
military  authorities.  Of  those  which  are  civilly  administered,  the  peni- 
tentiaries and  certain  of  the  larger  ordinary  prisons,  the  sentences  of 
whose  inmates  exceed  three  months,  are  under  the  ministry  of  the 
interior ;  the  others  are  under  the  ministry  of  justice.  The  official  who 
exercises  direct  authority  over  the  prisons  of  each  province  is  the  ober 
prdsident,  an  appointee  of  the  king  and  the  representative  of  the  central 
government  in  the  province.  His  acts  require  the  approval  of  the 
minister,  who  appoints  the  chief  administrative  officials  and  issues 
regulations  for  the  government  of  the  prisons.  The  management  of  the 
prison  is  in  the  hands  of  a  director  or  superintendent  who  is  advised 
by  a  board  though  its  advice  is  not  binding  upon  him. 

Outside  of  Prussia  the  prisons  are  usually  under  the  ministry  of 
Justice  and  there  is  a  rigid  system  of  inspection  of  all  prisons. 


56  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 


III.     SUGGESTIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS. 

A.      THE  CHARITABLE  INSTITUTIONS. 

At  present  the  charitable  and  penal  institutions  of  Illinois  are  ad- 
ministered according  to  two  different  systems,  based  upon  opposite 
principles  of  administrative  organization,  although  fundamentally  the 
two  classes  of  institutions  are  very  similar,  and  no  substantial  reason 
exists  why  they  should  not  be  managed  and  controlled  by  the  same  sort 
of  administrative  machinery.  A  dual  system  of  organization  and  ad- 
ministration for  a  group  of  institutions  which,  for  administrative  pur- 
poses, belong  in  the  same  class  is  anomalous.  If  reason  and  experience 
have  shown,  as  they  seem  to  have,  that  the  charitable  institutions  can  be 
more  efficiently  and  economically  administered  by  a  single  central  board 
than  by  a  series  of  separate  boards,  one  for  each  institution,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  why  a  similar  system  should  not  be  adopted  for  the  management 
and  control  of  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions.  The  results  of 
five  years  experience  with  the  system  of  centralized  control  of  the  char- 
itable institutions  have  undoubtedly  demonstrated  that  it  is  both  more 
efficient  and  economical  than  the  old  system  of  control  by  separate  un- 
paid boards  which  gave  only  a  small  portion  of  their  time  to  the  dis- 
charge of  their  official  duties.  Apparently  the  new  system  has  worked 
out  satisfactorily  in  practice  and  there  is  no  desire  to  return  to  the  old 
system  in  force  before  1910.  The  present  system  is  certainly  in 
harmony  with  the  best  tendencies  of  modern  administrative  organiza- 
tion and  it  represents  the  ideal  toward  which  charity  experts  have  been 
striving  for  some  years.  Finally,  the  adoption  of  this  system  of  cen- 
tralized control  by  so  many  states  during  the  last  few  years  indicates 
that  it  is  destined  to  become  in  the  near  future  the  prevailing  system  of 
institutional  administration  in  this  country. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  does  not  appear  that  any  important 
changes  in  the  present  law  for  the  management  and  control  of  the 
charitable  institutions  are  desirable.  The  system  of  administration  by 
a  single  board  for  all  the  charitable  institutions  should  be  retained  sub- 
stantially as  it  is.5  However,  at  least  one  minor  change  in  the  Act  of 
1909  is  advisable,  and  there  is  another  suggestion  which  perhaps  de- 
serves some  consideration. 

6.  If  the  Board  of  Administration  were  not  already  established  and  the  charitable 
Institutions  were  now  under  separate  boards,  as  before  1910,  the  question  should  be 
considered  whether  the  board  form  of  organization  is  the  best  method  of  centralized 
control.  Much  might  be  said  in  favor  of  a  single  director  as  the  executive  head  of 
all  the  charitable  and  correctional  Institutions,  with  deputies  or  subordinate  com- 
missioners corresponding  to  the  Fiscal  Supervisor  and  the  alienist  member  of  the 
Board  of  Administration,  with  similar  officers  for  the  special  problems  of  the  cor- 
rectional and  children's  institutions;  and  all  subject  to  the  inspection  of  the  State 
Charities  Commission.  But  in  view  of  the  recent  establishment  of  the  Board  of 
Administration  and  the  decided  improvement  it  makes  on  the  former  system,  it  seems 
Advisable  not  to  propose  radical  changes  in  this  field,  when  reorganization  is  so  much 
more  necessary  in  other  directions. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  57 

First  of  all  it  is  worth  considering  whether  the  inspectional  ma- 
chinery which  the  Act  of  1909  provides  for  the  charitable  institutions 
is  not  more  elaborate  than  considerations  of  efficiency  require.  As  the 
law  now  stands  three  different  authorities  or  sets  of  authorities  are 
required  to  inspect  the  charitable  institutions:  (1)  the  Board  of 
Administration  itself;  (2)  the  Charities  Commission  and  (3)*  local 
boards  of  visitors,  one  for  each  institution.  The  provision  of  the  Act 
of  1909  authorizing  the  appointment  of  local  boards  of  visitors  to 
inspect  the  charitable  institutions  should  be  repealed.  In  practice  the 
provision  has  until  now  been  a  dead  letter,  since  with  a  single  exception 
no  local  board  of  visitors  has  been  appointed  for  any  institution.  The 
value  of  the  service  performed  by  such  boards  if  they  were  appointed, 
would  be  very  questionable.  In  all  probability  they  would  be  composed 
of  persons  who  would  have  no  special  qualifications,  and  unless  they 
were  given  an  opportunity  to  visit  other  institutions  for  the  purpose  of 
comparing  the  conditions  and  standards  prevailing  in  them,  their  judg- 
ment of  the  standards  of  efficiency  in  the  particular  institution  which 
they  are  commissioned  to  visit  would  be  of  doubtful  value.  The  Chari- 
ties Commission  with  its  inspectors,  who  are  or  should  be  experts  in  the 
field  of  charity  administration,  is  the  proper  authority  for  inspecting 
the  charitable  institutions,  for  pointing  out  unsatisfactory  conditions 
and  recommending  legislative  and  administrative  measures  for  their 
improvement. 

A  change  which  the  Board  of  Administration  favors  is  the  with- 
drawal of  the  training  school  for  girls  at  Geneva  and  the  St.  Charles 
school  for  boys  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Board  of  Administration 
and  the  placing  of  both  institutions  under  the  department  of  public 
instruction.  The  argument  in  favor  of  the  proposed  change  is  that  both 
institutions  are  largely  educational  in  purpose  and  that  therefore  they 
do  not  properly  fall  within  the  class  of  charitable  institutions.  But 
they  are  primarily  correctional  rather  than  educational  institutions  and 
do  not  properly  constitute  a  part  of  the  educational  system  of  the  State. 
In  the  other  states  where  central  boards  of  control  for  the  state 
institutions  have  been  established  all  such  institutions  as  industrial  and 
training  schools  for  delinquent  boys  and  girls  are  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  such  boards  rather  than  under  the  educational  authorities. 

B.      THE   PENAL   AND   REFORMATORY   INSTITUTIONS. 

Turning  to  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions,  each  of  which 
is  under  the  management  and  control  of  a  separate  board,  the  system 
would  be  improved  by  either  of  the  following  changes  : 

They  might  be  placed  under  the  existing  Board  of  Administration 
along  with  the  charitable  institutions,  as  is  the  case  in  the  states  of 
Arizona,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  New  Hampshire,  North  Dakota,  Ohio, 
South  Dakota,  Washington,  West  Virginia,  Wisconsin  and  Wyoming. 
The  bill  of  1909  as  originally  introduced  so  provided,  and  in  this  form 
it  was  favorably  reported  by  the  Senate  committee  to  which  it  was 
referred.  The  inclusion  of  the  penitentiaries  and  the  reformatory 
under  the  Board  of  Administration  was  urged  by  the  State  Conference 


58  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

of  Charities  and  Corrections  and  was  advocated  by  many  charity  and 
penological  experts  in  and  out  of  the  State;  but  the  provision  was 
stricken  from  the  bill  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  chiefly  on  the  ground 
that  owing  to  the  large  number  of  institutions  in  the  State  the  placing 
of  them  all  under  the  management  of  a  single  board  would  impose 
upon  it  a  task  so  large  that  it  would  be  difficult  if  not  impossible 
for  the  board  to  give  proper  attention  to  all  the  institutions. 

Since  the  board  has  now  effected  a  permanent  organization,  devel- 
oped the  necessary  administrative  machinery,  and  its  staff  has  acquired 
more  or  less  familiarity  with  the  problems  connected  with  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  institutions,  the  objection  has  less  force  than  it  had  in 
1909.  Members  of  the  board  have  declared  that  the  addition  of  another 
member  to  the  board  or  a  slight  increase  in  its  clerical  staff  would  pro- 
vide it  with  the  necessary  machinery  for  managing  the  other  three 
institutions. 

Undoubtedly  the  board  could  purchase  supplies  for  twenty-two 
institutions  as  easily  as  it  can  purchase  for  nineteen,  and  there  are 
other  services  which  could  be  performed  with  equal  ease  and  efficiency 
for  both  classes  of  institutions  as  for  the  one  class.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  obvious  that  the  more  the  number  of  institutions  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  board  is  multiplied  the  less  care  and  attention  will  it 
be  able  to  give  to  each  particular  institution.  The  addition  of  the  two 
penitentiaries  and  the  reformatory  to  the  institutions  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  board  will  bring  under  its  jurisdiction  and  control  more 
than  300  additional  employees  and  more  than  3,000  inmates,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  increased  business  and  financial  operations,  due  to  the 
operation  of  extensive  industries  by  these  institutions.  Other  states, 
it  is  true,  have  consolidated  the  management  of  all  their  charitable 
and  correctional  institutions  in  the  hands  of  a  single  board  and  with 
good  results.  But  no  one  of  these  states  has  so  large  a  number  of 
institutions  as  has  Illinois.  If  we  add  to  the  number  of  institutions 
already  under  the  management  of  the  board,  the  three  institutions  that 
have  been  provided  for  but  which  have  not  yet  been  constructed,  and 
the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  we  shall  have  a  total  of  twenty- 
five,  with  an  aggregate  population  of  more  than  20,000  inmates. 

In  view  of  these  facts  the  wiser  plan  would  appear  to  be  to  create 
a  separate  commission,  composed  of  three  members,  for  the  manage- 
ment and  control  of  these  three  institutions.  This  was  the  solution 
proposed  in  Senator  Manny's  bill  in  1909  and  it  is  the  plan  that  has 
been  adopted  in  a  number  of  states  where  there  is  more  than  one 
such  institution.  Among  these  states  are  California,  Kansas,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  and  Texas. 

Whichever  of  these  two  plans  is  adopted,  whether  the  manage- 
ment of  both  groups  of  institutions  shall  be  centralized  in  a  single 
board  or  whether  each  group  shall  be  under  the  control  of  a  separate 
board,  upon  one  point  there  can  be  little  difference  of  opinion,  namely 
the  desirability  of  abolishing  the  existing  separate  boards  by  which 
each  of  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  is  managed  and  the  con- 
solidation of  the  administration  in  a  single  authority. 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  59 

It  may  be  said  that  the  duties  of  such  a  commission  would  not 
be  sufficiently. numerous  and  important  to  occupy  their  entire  time; 
but  even  if  this  be  admitted,  the  objection  has  little  weight  since 
the  aggregate  salaries  of  the  three  proposed  commissioners  would 
be  less  than  the  amount  now  being  paid  in  the  form  of  salaries  to 
the  existing  commissioners.  There  is  little  doubt  that  such  a  commis- 
sion would  find  its  time  fully  occupied.  In  case  the  separate  boards 
were  abolished  provision  would  have  to  be  made  for  devolving  the 
duties  of  the  board  of  prison  industries  upon  some  other  authority. 
This  authority  would  naturally  be  the  new  board  of  prison  commis- 
sioners. The  duties  of  the  board  of  prison  industries  in  several  other 
states  are  performed  by  the  central  board  which  has  control  of  the 
penal  institutions.  Thus  in  California  they  are  performed  by  the 
state  board  of  prison  directors,  and  in  Minnesota,  Ohio,  and  Wisconsin 
(states  which  have  a  central  board  of  control  for  all  charitable  and 
penal  institutions,  they  are  performed  by  the  board  of  administration. 

Further  the  board  of  pardons  should  be  abolished  and  its  duties 
as  well  as  the  duties  in  respect  to  parole  now  performed  by  the  board 
of  managers  of  the  reformatory  devolvecf  upon  the  proposed  board 
of  prison  administration.  The  members  of  the  present  board  of  par- 
dons receive  a  salary  of  $3,500  per  year  and  the  total  cost  of  main- 
taining the  board  and  its  clerical  staff  amounts  to  about  $18,000  per 
annum.  The  actual  work  involved  in  the  investigation  of  applica- 
tions for  pardons  and  for  releases  in  parole  does  not  seem  sufficiently 
large  to  justify  the  employment  of  a  salaried  board  on  full  time.  In 
most  states  which  have  boards  of  pardons  such  boards  are  wholly  or 
largely  ex  officio,  that  is,  they  are  composed  of  certain  state  officers 
who  receive  no  extra  compensation  for  their  services.  In  but  six 
states  (Indiana,  Kansas,  Michigan,  South  Carolina,  and  Texas)  besides 
Illinois,  do  we  find  salaried  pardon  boards  composed  of  persons  who 
are  not  at  the  same  time  holders  of  other  state  offices ;  and  in  but  few 
of  them  does  the  salary  attached  to  the  office  exceed  several  hundred 
dollars  a  year  (in  Indiana,  $300  a  year;  in  Kansas  and  Michigan,  $5 
a  day;  Ohio,  not  more  than  $75  per  year;  South  Carolina,  not  more 
than  $80  per  year;  Texas,  two  members  at  $2,000  per  year). 

In  California,  Georgia  and  Kentucky  the  board  of  prison  commis- 
sioners serves  as  the  board  of  pardons,  while  in  Ohio,  Wisconsin  and 
Washington  the  board  of  control  of  state  institutions  performs  the 
duties  in  relation  to  parole  (but  not  in  respect  to  pardons).  With 
but  three  institutions  under  their  control,  the  proposed  board  of  prison 
commissioners  would  have  ample  time  to  perform  all  the  duties  now 
imposed  by  law  on  the  board  of  pardons,  and  thus  an  economy  of 
$18,000  per  annum  would  be  effected.. 

It  is  worth  considering  whether  in  case  a  separate  board  for 
the  management  of  the  penitentiaries  and  the  reformatory  is  created, 
it  would  not  be  desirable  to  extend  the  authority  of  the  fiscal  super- 
visor of  the  charitable  institutions  over  the  penal  institutions,  so  that 
the  twenty-five  charitable  and  penal  institutions  of  the  state,  although 
under  two  separate  boards  for  purposes  of  administration,  would  never- 


60  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

theless  be  subject  to  the  fiscal  supervision  of  a  single  authority.  This 
would  be  a  means  of  securing  uniformity  of  financial  and  business 
operations  in  respect  to  both  classes  of  institutions  which  in  our  judg- 
ment is  very  much  to  be  desired. 

Whether  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  are  managed  and 
controlled  by  a  single  board  or  by  separate  boards,  as  they  now  are, 
they  should  be  subjected  to  the  visitorial,  inspectional  and  investigative 
jurisdiction  of  the  State  Charities  Commission.  The  Hay,  Manny  and 
McKenzie  bills,  of  1909,  all  provided  for  the  inspection  of  these  insti- 
tutions by  a  board  of  charities  and  corrections.  As  has  been  said,  the 
charitable  institutions  are  subject  to  the  inspection  of  three  different 
bodies;  but  the  penal  and  reformatory  institutions  are  subject  to  no 
supervision  or  inspection  other  than  that  of  their  own  local  boards. 
That  is,  each  board  of  managers  and  it  alone,  has  power  to  inspect 
its  own  work.  This  is  an  anomalous  situation.  These  boards  have 
under  their  care  more  than  3,000  prisoners  and  they  control  the 
expenditure  and  disposition  of  more  than  two  million  dollars  annually, 
yet  their  methods  of  dealing  with  prisoners  and  their  financial  oper- 
ations are  not  subject  to  the  inspection  or  supervision  of  any  authority. 
Before  1909  the  reformatory  was  subject  to  inspection  by  the  State 
Board  of  Charities,  but  this  power  was  not  given  to  the  present  chari- 
ties commission. 

Finally,  there  are  two  provisions  in  the  act  creating  the  reform- 
atory that  need  to  be  altered  in  the  interest  of  more  effective  discipline 
and  punishment.  The  first  of  these  provisions  is  section  12  which 
authorizes  the  courts  to  sentence  to  the  reformatory  offenders  between 
16  and  21  years  of  age  who  have  not  been  previously  sentenced  to 
the  penitentiary.  The  supreme  court  has  held,  in  the  case  of  Hender- 
son vs.  the  People,  165  111.,  p.  607,  that  this  section  did  not  apply 
to  a  person  under  21  years  of  age  who  had  been  previously  sentenced 
to  the  reformatory.  A  reformatory,  said  the  court,  must  be  dis- 
tinguished from  a  penitentiary;  that  a  sentence  to  the  penitentiary 
implies  infamous  punishment  and  involves  consequences  to  a  convict 
of  a  much  more  serious  character.  It  matters  not  therefore  how 
many  times  an  offender  under  21  years  of  age  may  have  been  previ- 
ously sentenced  to  the  reformatory  he  cannot  be  resentenced  to  the 
penitentiary.  The  result  of  this  decision  is  to  compel  the  reformatory 
to  receive  criminals  who  may  have  already  served  one  or  more  terms 
in  the  reformatory,  and  whose  presence  therein  is  dangerous  to  the 
welfare  of  the  institution,  and  who,  ought  properly  to  be  confined 
in  the  penitentiary.  The  difficulty  occasioned  by  the  supreme  court 
decision  can  be  removed  by  inserting  the  words  "or  reformatory"  after 
the  word  "penitentiary"  in  the  fourth  line  of  said  section  and  by  insert- 
ing the  same  words  after  the  word  "prison"  in  the  eleventh  line.  In 
this  form  the  section  would  be  similar  to  the  corresponding  provision 
in  the  Minnesota  law  in  respect  to  the  reformatory. 

The  other  provision  which  needs  amendment  is  section  15  author- 
izing the  board  of  managers  of  the  reformatory  to  transfer  to  the 
penitentiary  incorrigible  prisoners  whose  presence  in  the  reformatory 


CHARITABLE    AND    CORRECTIONAL    INSTITUTIONS.  61 

is  deemed  to  be  detrimental  to  the  best  interests  of  the  institution  and 
of  its  inmates.  The  supreme  court,  in  the  case  of  the  People  vs. 
Mallary,  195  111.,  p.  582,  held  this  provision  to  be  unconstitutional  on 
the  ground  that  it  conferred  judicial  power  on  the  board  of  managers. 
Such  an  act  by  the  board  of  managers  said  the  court  is  not  merely 
a  determination  of  the  conditions  of  circumstances  under  which  the 
prisoner  may  be  committed  to  the  penitentiary  but  it  is  the  exercise 
of  judicial  power  which  the  Legislature  can  not  confer  upon  such  a 
body.  Nevertheless  the  court  suggested  that  legislation  might  be  so 
framed  as  to  make  the  order  of  transfer  from  the  reformatory  to 
the  penitentiary  a  mere  determination  of  the  conditions  on  which  the 
prisoner  could  lawfully  be  transferred  from  the  one  institution  to  the 
other,  but  section  fifteen  (15)  as  it  now  stands,  can  not  be  so  construed. 

The  objection  raised  by  the  court  might  be  removed  by  amending 
section  15  to  read  as  follows: 

Whenever  in  the  judgment  of  the  board  of  managers  or  the' proposed 
board  of  prison  commissioners,  any  inmates  of  the  reformatory  between 
the  ages  of  16  and  21  years  persistently  violates  the  rules  of  the  institution 
in  regard  to  the  discipline  and  good  conduct  of  the  prisoners  or  otherwise 
becomes  incorrigible,  so  that  his  presence  therein  is  detrimental  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  institution  and  its  inmates,  the  board  of  managers 
may  file  a  petition  before  the  circuit  court  in  the  district  in  which  the 
.  reformatory  is  located  stating  the  causes  upon  which  the  application  is 
based  and  asking  that  an  order  be  issued  for  the  transfer  of  the  said 
offender  to  one  of  the  penitentiaries.  After  notice  has  been  duly  served 
upon  the  said  offender  and  after  a  hearing  at  which  he  shall  have  the 
right  to  be  represented  by  counsel  the  court  may,  if  satisfied  of  the  truth 
of  the  charges  alleged  in  the  petiti'on  issue  an  order  for  the  transfer  of 
such  person  to  the  penitentiary.  Whenever,  in  the  judgment  of  the  board 
of  commissioners  of  the  penitentiary  to  which  he  has  been  transferred  his 
return  to  the  reformatory  would  not  be  detrimental  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  reformatory  the  board  may  in  its  discretion  re-transfer  him  to  the 
reformatory. 

This  in  substance  is  the  procedure  in  New  York  for  transferring 
incorrigibles  from  the  reformatories  to  the  penitentiary.  Or  the 
offender  might  be  sentenced  in  alternative  either  to  the  penitentiary 
or  the  reformatory,  it  being  understood  that  he  would  as  a  matter  of 
course  be  committed  to  the  reformatory,  leaving  the  board  of  managers 
(or  the  board  of  prison  commissioners  in  case  such  a  board  is  created) 
to  transfer  him  to  the  penitentiary  upon  the  happening  of  certain  con- 
ditions specified  in  the  law. 

Comparative  Expense. 

At  present  the  aggregate  salaries  of  the  fourteen  members  of  these 
boards  is  $25,000  per  year,  not  including  expenses  and  salaries 
for  clerical  assistance  which  amounts  to  about  $5,000  per  year,  mak- 
ing a  total  cost  for  salaries  and  clerical  help  for  the  three  boards 
$30,000  per  year.  This  sum  would  provide  a  salary  of  $5,000  for 
each  of  three  proposed  commissioners  and  leave  a  balance  of  $15,000 
a  year  for  clerical  and  other  expenses.  With  this  salary  the  com- 


62  EFFICIENCY    AND    ECONOMY    COMMITTEE. 

missioners  could  be  required  to  give  their  whole  time  to  the  dis- 
charge of  their  official  duties  instead  of  a  small  portion  as  is  now 
done  by  the  members  of  the  existing  boards.  In  addition  to  securing 
uniformity  in  the  administration  of  the  several  institutions  the  efficiency 
of  the  control  exercised  by  such  a  board  would  undoubtedly  be  vastly 
increased ;  and  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  institutions  should  be  largely 
reduced. 

Below  is  given  a  summary  of  the  salaries  for  administrative 
officers  under  the  present  and  proposed  organization  of  correctional 
institutions : 

Present  Organization. 

Per  Year 

3  Commissioners  Illinois   State   Penitentiary   @  $1,500 $  4,500 

3  Commissioners   Southern   111.   Penitentiary  @     1,500 4,500 

5  Managers   Illinois   State  Reformatory....    @     1,200 6,000 

3  Members  State  Board  of  Pardons @    3,500 10,500 

1  Clerk  to   Board  of  Pardons @    2,000 2,000 


Total    ' $27,500 

Proposed  Organisation. 

3  Members  Board  of  Prison  Administration    @  $5,000 $15,000 

1  Pardon   Clerk    @    2,000 2,000 


Total    $1'7,000 

Reduction  under  proposed  organization $10,500 

There  should  also  be  a  further  direct  saving  in  clerical  and  office 
expenses,  by  concentrating  the  purchase  of  supplies  and  business  man- 
agement of  the  institutions  in  one  office.  But  the  direct  saving  in 
salaries  and  office  expenses  will  be  a  small  part  of  the  total  economy 
of  the  proposed  organization.  The  most  important  results  should 
appear  in  the  reduced  cost  of  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  insti- 
tutions and  the  more  efficient  service.  As  already  noted,  if  the  pen- 
itentiaries and  reformatory  were  maintained  at  the  same  per  capita 
cost  as  in  the  institutions  under  the  State  Board  of  Administration 
there  would  be  a  saving  in  ordinary  expenses  of  more  than  $200,000  a 
year.  An  equal  or  greater  saving  should  also  be  possible  in  the  opera- 
tion of  the  prison  industries. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 


30112070206070 


